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

[MTK]

NFL’s flirtation with contempt of court intensifies | ProFootballTalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

NFL’s flirtation with contempt of court intensifies | ProFootballTalk

While I question PFT's position to provide legal analysis, it does bring up good points. The NFL is no longer in a position to stall the start of the new league year.

I would imagine, again not a lawyer here, but I'd guess that the law would permit the NFL some time to get its house in order and communicate the new world to its teams. In other words, Judge Nelson has said the lockout is over, and if the NFL were to purposely delay the start of the new year, they could be found in contempt of court. But there still needs to be a few days of lead time for the NFL to communicate with its teams and set a date for the opening of free agency that represents a reasonable time frame for logistically ending the lockout.

The NFL's legal team are probably explaining the situation to the executives as we speak, and teams are all completely in the dark awaiting for direction from the executives. Over the next few days Goodell is going to provide that direction to teams, and from a legal standpoint that direction can only be, "Gentlemen, start your engines."

[BigHairedAristocrat]

That is how I've felt since the issue was first ordered by Nelson on Monday. On the flip side, if the teams do come up with rules and move forward, the players will file an antitrust lawsuit since 32 individual teams can't arbitrarily establish a set of rules on a non-unionized workforce.

That's why I believe Nelson made the wrong call. The league is damned I'd they do and damned if they don't. It's highly unfair.

[Schneed10]

And now reading more about it, it appears the players are making the points I'm making, that free agency should start immediately. But at the same time the NFL is standing firm that the league year will not move forward without the stay issue being resolved through the 8th circuit of appeals.

So WTF is going on. I can see why there's so much confusion. On one hand you have a judge siding with the players, basically telling the NFL to get on with it, you're not going to win, you have to end the lockout. And on the other hand you have the NFL saying "we don't have to listen to you, we're taking the case to the 8th circuit."

What a cluster. All these appeals and legal proceedings are ridiculous. A judge said play ball. So shut up and play ball, NFL!!

I gotta say, I never thought I'd be for a union of any kind. I'm a company/management kind of a guy through and through. But the owners are serious bitches on this one. I hope the 8th circuit says talk to the hand, we dont' want to hear it.

[JoeRedskin]

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

Your semi-informed law knowledge is better than my semi-educated guesses. You're probably right, that adds a whole other layer of confusion.

I am guessing that as this confusion begins to get cleared up, the NFL is going to look like a bunch of assholes. Business is going to have to resume at some point, and the league will not be prepared in the least.

Free agency will start at an awkward time, or there will be no salary cap, or teams will be in the dark. OR... the NFL will cave in its negotiations with the players and accept a deal just to keep some rules in place and maintain competitive balance.

The players have all the leverage at this point. What a mess.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Your semi-informed law knowledge is better than my semi-educated guesses. You're probably right, that adds a whole other layer of confusion.

I am guessing that as this confusion begins to get cleared up, the NFL is going to look like a bunch of assholes. Business is going to have to resume at some point, and the league will not be prepared in the least.

Free agency will start at an awkward time, or there will be no salary cap, or teams will be in the dark. OR... the NFL will cave in its negotiations with the players and accept a deal just to keep some rules in place and maintain competitive balance.

The players have all the leverage at this point. What a mess.

Yeah, but they will look that way b/c the Judge has created a no-win situation for them. No matter what they do, they are at serious risk of being found either in contempt or colluding. Do nothing - contemp. Agree to adopt the old CBA rules - collusion (do they adopt last year's rules which a lot of player's hated or those of some prior year? No matter which they adopt, aren't they colluding to prohibit certain players who are out of contract from moving (what about the undrafted original free agent who would normally be an Exclusive Restrictied Free agent?). The old CBA rules (regardless of year) had multiple areas where, under collective bargaining, the players union could agree on behalf of all players - even it made some players unhappy. Now, with no collective bargaining entity, any agreement by teams to impose across the board restrictions (we will treat all 2nd year players as EFA's) is blatant collusion.

I haven't read the original opinion of J. Nelson, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is probably poorly written and a bad case of result oriented (as opposed to law based) judging.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

Given the conditions which you so ably describe, the owners should be motivated to re-install last year's rules. Yes, this could still be considered collusion, but since the players agreed on those rules once upon a time, it is a safer stance than new, ad hoc rules.

And, if I am an owner, I see the wisdom of getting back to the bargaining table, compromising, and getting something done.

While the free-for-all which you describe does have some benefits for owners, in the bigger picture owners will lose in a free-for-all situation, and they know it.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given the conditions which you so ably describe, the owners should be motivated to re-install last year's rules. Yes, this could still be considered collusion, but since the players agreed on those rules once upon a time, it is a safer stance than new, ad hoc rules.

And, if I am an owner, I see the wisdom of getting back to the bargaining table, compromising, and getting something done.

While the free-for-all which you describe does have some benefits for owners, in the bigger picture owners will lose in a free-for-all situation, and they know it.

Will they? The players are the inputs for the NFL's product. The players may lose in a situation like this as where else can they go to make this much money? The NFL is the only place a football player can make millions over a career and there is no other league in the world that can compete with NFL salaries. SO where else can a player go to be paid money to play this game. The two sides needs to just come together and get the new CBA rules in place and move on, instead of all the uncertainty that comes from the current situation.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I agree with Schneed in that if this is the end of the lockout then there needs to be a time frame to allow the businesses to get there resources together and there needs to be an opening day that allows fair game of the FA market.

Also like the points on collusion. I have not read the articles posted yet, but you are spot on regarding antitrust laws. Business Law 101 just took it last semester... lol

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

I agree with Schneed in that if this is the end of the lockout then there needs to be a time frame to allow the businesses to get there resources together and there needs to be an opening day that allows fair game of the FA market.

Also like the points on collusion. I have not read the articles posted yet, but you are spot on regarding antitrust laws. Business Law 101 just took it last semester... lol

I agree. But from Judge Nelson's point of view, that time frame began Monday, not this evening. The owners should have already been preparing for that eventuality.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

I agree with Schneed in that if this is the end of the lockout then there needs to be a time frame to allow the businesses to get there resources together and there needs to be an opening day that allows fair game of the FA market.

Also like the points on collusion. I have not read the articles posted yet, but you are spot on regarding antitrust laws. Business Law 101 just took it last semester... lol

What channel 4 stated was the owners were denied and now all the teams are scrambling to make their FA pick ups and probably talking trades right now.

I would presume all the teams were prepared to start doing something in case the Judge ruled against the owners. Heck I'm sure the coaching staff were probably standing by because they were probably in their war room developing plans for both FA if the ruling went for the players and draft.

With any luck McNabb is being traded to the Vikes for a 3rd or 4th rounder, AH is being traded for a 5th or 6th rounder, or atleast something.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

What channel 4 stated was the owners were denied and now all the teams are scrambling to make their FA pick ups and probably talking trades right now.

I would presume all the teams were prepared to start doing something in case the Judge ruled against the owners. Heck I'm sure the coaching staff were probably standing by because they were probably in their war room developing plans for both FA if the ruling went for the players and draft.

With any luck McNabb is being traded to the Vikes for a 3rd or 4th rounder, AH is being traded for a 5th or 6th rounder, or atleast something.

I think there may have been some under the table dealings going on by GMs, but I highly doubt the owners and the league were preparing for a decision in favor of the players. Ever since the ruling on Monday, the league has done nothing but stall this decision.

In the end, any team that wanted to sign a free agent, trade for a current player, or trade a player for picks before the draft gets screwed by this.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cam Jordan and Matt Hasselbeck?

JJ Watt and Christian Ponder and Ryan Harris and Davin Joseph?

Lolll

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

As smart as I think the NFL people are they should have a contingency plan in place for this ruling. The NFL should be ready for this ruling, so there should be a plan in place for them to inact fairly quickly. BUT will they wait for the draft to end or will they just open up in the morning.

We need to wait for some kind of info out of Goodel's office about how this will be handled.