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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Now I'm confused. I know the owners probably wanted a whole new CBA and to get it meant going past the deadline without an agreement, but...

I don't think the owners were the ones who backed out first. I don't care how much garbage the offer was by the owners, the players still had 6 hrs on the clock to negotiate when they walked out and decertified. In my opinion they walked out of the CBA. It was my understanding that if the owners didn't lockout the players each individual player could file a law suit against the owner which is why they locked out to protect themselves. Plus the players felt they would have the upper hand by decertifying (which is illegal) so the owners locked out to get that upper hand back.

Am I wrong?

kinda -
1 -the owners opted out 2 years ago. Had they not done that the current CBA would have been in place for 2 more years, and the 2011 season would not be in jeopardy.

(note that the language to opt out was such that either party could opt out. Clearly the players were not going to because they like the CBA as it was written. The owners took their legal option to opt out, now most on the players' side make it sound like that was the sole cause for where we are)

2 - the CBA included provisions for handling labor law at the expiration:

Section 2. Labor Exemption: In effectuation of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the labor exemption from the antitrust laws applies during the express term of this Agreement and to any conduct of the NFL and the NFLPA taken in accordance with the terms of this Agreement during its express term.

Section 3. CBA Expiration:
(a) Following the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, then, if the NFLPA is in existence as a union, the Parties agree that none of the Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) nor any player represented by the NFLPA shall be able to commence an action, or assert a claim, under the antitrust laws for conduct occurring, until either: (i) the Management Council and NFLPA have bargained to impasse; or (ii) six (6) months after such expiration, whichever is later; at that time, the Parties reserve any arguments they may make regarding the application of thelabor exemption.

(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.

so basically, in Section 2, both sides agree that Antitrust doesn't apply during the CBA.

then Section 3 deals with AFTER the CBA expires

in Section 3a the owners are promised that no antitrust action will be taken until 6 months or a mediation impasse occur

and in Section 3b the players are assured that the NFL will not declare a decertification (again after the CBA expires) a sham.

(It seems clear to me, that the NFLPA didn't honor this in the spirit it was intended. That is, it gave both sides assurances of good faith behaviour, and the NFLPA circumvented those assurances in order to gain a huge strong arm tactic over the NFL.)

3 - whether the decertification is illegal is at the center of the case before the appeals court. That is why the fact that it will be expedited and ruled on before July is an excellent thing. By the spirit of the above CBA, the decertification certainly exhibits some degree of bad faith to honor the 6 month period both had agreed upon.

In my opinion, the owners violated good faith in the TV deals, and the players violated good faith by decertifying before the CBA expired (note section 2 both sides agreed to maintain Anti-trust protection for the term of the CBA. Basically the owners didn't get the right legal-ese to protect themselves from the NFLPA breaking the spirit of the agreement)