re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;796353]Great find, I found this interesting:

"Mandatory and voluntary mini-camps may begin subject to the rules in Article [B]XXXVI of the 2006 CBA[/B]."

I wonder if they'd have modified 2006 CBA Rules? Although I think it would make more sense to do 2010 as much as they suck. If they go to 2006 rules, then players like Sidney Rice would be free for the taking. At the least I hope they can open up player trades so we can unload McNabb and (hopefully) Haynesworth (sh*t, I'll take a seventh rounder at this point).[/quote]

I saw that, too. Why return to 2006 rules? Will 2006 rules apply to player transactions, too? Very strange.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;796417]Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years.[/quote]

Thanks CRed. That makes sense.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=NC_Skins;796338][url=http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/4/28/2139259/2011-nfl-lockout-players-association-says-year-should-begin-now]2011 NFL Lockout: Player's Association Says Year Should Begin Now - Stampede Blue[/url]

Armed guards and stacks of boxes preventing guys from working out? ...lolol What a dope.




[B]These guys don't believe the law applies to them[/B].[/quote]

Says the guy backing the group that is illegally decertifying in order to force the owners into a Hobbesian choice.

Don't get me wrong, I think all are to blame in many ways. But for the players to be suddenly seeking protection of the law on one hand while blatantly circumventing it on the other evokes no sympathy from me.

I call BS my friend.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;796417]Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if [B]they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years[/B].[/quote]

And, of course, be open to treble damages for colluding to prevent player movement.

If I am the NFL's attorney I advise them to do exactly what they are doing, wait until the Judge makes an unequivocal statement, then slowly and incrementally comply. Drag your feet but keep moving forward, then plead the "gosh jeepers" defense to the Judge: "Gosh Geepers judge, we're trying to comply, but we want to make sure whatever we do is legal." All the while prepping and doing all you can to expedite the appeal of Nelson's order.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;796549]A[B]nd, of course, be open to treble damages for colluding to prevent player movement.[/B]

If I am the NFL's attorney I advise them to do exactly what they are doing, wait until the Judge makes an unequivocal statement, then slowly and incrementally comply. Drag your feet but keep moving forward, then plead the "gosh jeepers" defense to the Judge: "Gosh Geepers judge, we're trying to comply, but we want to make sure whatever we do is legal." All the while prepping and doing all you can to expedite the appeal of Nelson's order.[/quote]

exactly, I don't even begin to know the legalities involved in all this, but how the league can be told on one hand, you must open, but on the other say, any rules will be subject to anti-trust threats. I just don't get it.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Well, all the owners are evil and don't deserve sound legal rulings anyway. The "Rule of Law" only applies to the folks we like.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

From ESPN 980, the 8th Circuit Court grants the league a stay of the lockout injunction.

Good job owners, you are giving less time for the players you drafted to get acquainted with playbooks and whatnot.

:doh:

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

And for conspiracy theorists around the world, how does the fact that the NFL got to do all the meet greets with their 1st rounders fit into our judicial branch's timing. Mighty suspicious if you ask me :cheeky-sm

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

So can the teams sign the players they have drafted? And if they do, do they say: "okay you've signed on the dotted line, now we can't speak to you" after they sign the rooks?

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/report-owners-get-stay-of-injunction-lockout-back-on/]Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk[/url]


Lockout could be back on.



I don't get this. How is it one judge sees all these things in the CBA that broke Anti-trust laws, yet now we have another judge allowing the lockout?

****ing retarded.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=NC_Skins;798107][url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/report-owners-get-stay-of-injunction-lockout-back-on/]Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk[/url]


Lockout could be back on.



I don't get this. How is it one judge sees all these things in the CBA that broke Anti-trust laws, yet now we have another judge allowing the lockout?

****ing retarded.[/quote]

Well basically, it takes players type money to pay off State level judges, but it takes owner type money to pay off Appellate level judges.






I keeed, I keeed

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;798112]Well basically, it takes players type money to pay off State level judges, but it takes owner type money to pay off Appellate level judges.






I keeed, I keeed[/quote]

Probably closer to the truth than you know. Justice in this country is bought and paid for.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

EricStangel Eric Stangel
by gregaiello
BREAKING: The NFL #Lockout may or may not be back on... or off...
17 minutes ag

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

yeah it's definitely not back on... yet!

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Man, we were all saying Mort is Mr. Doom and Gloom yesterday, but he called this

what an unfortunate situation

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=NC_Skins;798107][url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/report-owners-get-stay-of-injunction-lockout-back-on/]Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk[/url]


Lockout could be back on.



I don't get this. How is it one judge sees all these things in the CBA that broke Anti-trust laws, yet now we have another judge allowing the lockout?

****ing retarded.[/quote]

Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.

As a result, this deal would be VERY short and whenever it expired, we would be right back in the same mess we're in now.

From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair. Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith. His remarks are always to the extreme and border on insanity.

Ultimately, the only way we will have long-term labor peace in the NFL is if both sides negotiate a fair deal. The best chance for that to happen is during the lockout. Both sides have to get back to the bargaining table and continuing the lockout will essentially force both sides to do just that. If the players had any sense, they'd remove Smith from the process ASAP and assign a delegation to talk with the owners and work out a deal, using the last offer the NFL made back in march as a starting point.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Insider The Insider
8th District Appeals Court Clerk Michael E. Gans says no ruling issued either way. Previous reports of lockout back on are erroneous.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Of course they're erroneous, we're posting reports from PFT here.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Imagine that

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Monkeydad;798141]Of course they're erroneous, we're posting reports from PFT here.[/quote]

to be fair this one's on ESPN. Don't know where they got their info from.

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;798126]Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.

As a result, this deal would be VERY short and whenever it expired, we would be right back in the same mess we're in now.

From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair. Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith. His remarks are always to the extreme and border on insanity.

Ultimately, the only way we will have long-term labor peace in the NFL is if both sides negotiate a fair deal. The best chance for that to happen is during the lockout. Both sides have to get back to the bargaining table and continuing the lockout will essentially force both sides to do just that. If the players had any sense, they'd remove Smith from the process ASAP and assign a delegation to talk with the owners and work out a deal, using the last offer the NFL made back in march as a starting point.[/quote]Great post.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Can't find info on web. Is the lockout on or off?

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=GreekSkin;798146]to be fair this one's on ESPN. Don't know where they got their info from.[/quote]

Just confusion in the communication with the many moving pieces of this story

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

for an off-season that supposed to be locked down, it's been a epic ride of highs and lows lol

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;798126]Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.[/quote]


This a professional opinion or personal? Not sure any of us can say her judgment was wrong from a legal perspective without being a lawyer or at least somebody with expertise in that field.



[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;798126]From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair. [/quote]

The difference is, if the players strike, the owners can bring in new players and still get paid from TV contracts, endorsements,etc. The players on the other hand don't get paid. I'd say they aren't even remotely the same.

So should the NFL Players get TV contracts, concessions money and other endorsements during this time when the owners are locking out? The owners would if it were a player strike. You are all about "equality" as you keep saying.


[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;798126]Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith.[/quote]

That's not quite true, and misleading to say the least. The owners colluded after signing the last CBA that they were going to opt out, and they were going to make it so they had all the leverage by having the TV contract rights still pay them 4 billion even in the case of a lock out. Sound like a "even playing field" to you"? Stevie Wonder can see how crooked it is, which is exactly why it got shot down in the court of law. You speak about DeMaurice SMith as if you are in these negotiations and he's some evil villain, yet you don't mention Jerry Jones or Jerry Richardson insulting the players at the meeting. That street goes both ways.




I suggest you read this.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-owners-are-wrong-and-dont-get-it/2011/04/26/AFPj63rE_story.html]NFL owners are wrong, and don’t get it - The Washington Post[/url]

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Did the NFL release the rules for transactions yet?

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

They were supposed to at 8 a.m. I believe.

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;798126]Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

.[/quote]

Typically when a party seeks a stay/injuction/protective/peace or restraining order the moving party presents it to the Court ex parte, meaning only the moving party (in this case the NFL) is present.

Typically a temporary protective order/stay/injunction is issued, notice for a hearing with all parties to be present is sent out to everyone and the final hearing is held usually a week to 10 days after the temp protective order.

So I wouldnt go thinking this is evidence that Judge Nelson is completely wrong and short sighted. This is a huge issue for America right now, there is no way in heck the 8th Circuit is not going to hear arguments on this case so we can all get to a final non-appealable decision.

The 8th circuit almost had to issue a temp order to maintain status qou until they get a chance to have a full hearing, consider arguments then give an opinion (which really will just remand this thing bakc to Judge Nelson but with instructions/directions on procedurial issues).

Its not hard at all to get a temp protective order. While the 8th circuit could have denied the temp order request and still set this in on for a full hearing, that would seem kinda odd procedurially. 'We deny the temp order b/c we find that you have not presented any evidence that you may suffer immediate irreparable harm but we are going to set this in for a full appeal anyways" just would be weird.

Its in the 8th circuit now, things are frozen until the 8th circuit can hear from the NFLPA on the issue of whether a lockout would cause immediate irreparable harm which will happen at the final protective order hearing within a week. Then we wait until there is a hearing on the actual merits of the appeal. The 8th circuit will not decide this case, it will be remanded back down to Judge Nelson with instructions imo.

Short version is = this has nothing to do with the merits of the appeal, it is a very normal ancillary step in the appellate process. We normally file 2 motions for stays, 1 in trial court and other contemporaneously with the appeal petition itself.

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;798093]From ESPN 980, the 8th Circuit Court grants the league a stay of the lockout injunction.

Good job owners, you are giving less time for the players you drafted to get acquainted with playbooks and whatnot.

:doh:[/quote]

Butz we needz more of ze luckzery boxez. We don't make enough moneys to cover ze alimony payments. Plus the playerz get 60%, thatz not fair.

"Actually the players get 53%."

"You zay potato i zay lockout."

re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
Motion for temp stay granted. Lockout back on.

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=over the mountain;798171]Its in the 8th circuit now, things are frozen until the 8th circuit can hear from [B]the NFLPA on the issue of whether a lockout would cause immediate irreparable harm which will happen at the final protective order hearing within a week. [/B]Then we wait until there is a hearing on the actual merits of the appeal. The 8th circuit will not decide this case, it will be remanded back down to Judge Nelson with instructions imo.

Short version is = this has nothing to do with the merits of the appeal, it is a very normal ancillary step in the appellate process. We normally file 2 motions for stays, 1 in trial court and other contemporaneously with the appeal petition itself.[/quote]

For the substantive injunctive relief, don't they also have to show liklihood of success. I was sure that was one of the factors.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

F**k you owners. You bleed us dry then you take away football so you can bleed us further. What's the chance fans will see price reductions if the players give in to what they want?

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

The players should stall on this the same way the league did when Judge Nelson ordered the lockout to be ended.

Re: Owners' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;798465]For the substantive injunctive relief, don't they also have to show liklihood of success. I was sure that was one of the factors.[/quote]

According to my civil procedure notes likelihood of success on the merits is one of four factors that courts weigh when considering an injunction, but circuits are split on whether each of these factors needs to be satisfied to grant the injunction or whether the four instead function as a balancing test. Keep in mind that I've forgotten everything I learned in civpro so this could be completely wrong. But that's what I have written down.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

^^ lol, yeah. It's one of the four factors and I think that the balancing test is just that with a lot of discretion given to the trial judge. Irreprable harm, liklihood of success - what are the other two? I forgot. Used to do a lot of injunction work but it's been a while.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Fans: "We want football! We want football! We want football! "

Goodell: I hear you, I hear you.

Day after: Judges temporarily reinstate lockout.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;798720]F**k you owners. You bleed us dry then you take away football so you can bleed us further. What's the chance fans will see price reductions if the players give in to what they want?[/quote]


Without resorting to profanity, the answer is that the fans have ZERO chance of seeing price reductions no matter what the outcome of all these legal entanglements and CBA negotiations.

And that is why the billionaire owners and the millionaire players and all of their lawyers can drag all this out forever. Because in the end, the fans will continue to fork over $9+ B in revenue each and every year...

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;798989]Without resorting to profanity, the answer is that the fans have ZERO chance of seeing price reductions no matter what the outcome of all these legal entanglements and CBA negotiations.

And that is why the billionaire owners and the millionaire players and all of their lawyers can drag all this out forever. Because in the end, the fans will continue to fork over $9+ B in revenue each and every year...[/quote]

Sooo...let me see if I have this. The Players will NOT agree to fund a reduction in ticket pricing to the fan from their end of the pot?
Hmmm....who would have thought........

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Hog1;798993]Sooo...let me see if I have this. The Players will NOT agree to fund a reduction in ticket pricing to the fan from their end of the pot?
Hmmm....who would have thought........[/quote]

?? The players dont' set the prices for tickets. That would be the owners. The players get a percentage of the total revenue. If that revenue is lower, then they'll take a lower percentage. I think you are barking up the wrong tree my friend.