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

[JoeRedskin]

I'm with BHA on this. Judge Nelson's decision puts the players in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I am not impressed with her "players will suffer irreparable harm" argument either. If I recall my injunction law, the loss of money, in and of itself, is not justification of "irreparable harm". So, J. Nelson seems to think that players are suffering irreparable harm b/c they can't negotiate and move? I dunno. Seems to me the players created the situation by decertifying and choosing to game the labor law rules. But for their decertification, the matter would have proceeded through the NRLB. IMHO, the players are doing all they can to avoid the spirit of the law and, instead, use the vagueries of the law as written to stick it to the big bad corporations.

PS I am also half drunk as I have been out having "Booze on the Porch Night" with the neighbors. So, if I am slightly less than coherent, please forgive me.

PPS: Smootsmack is full of crap, has no clue what he's talking about and is wayyy to impressed with himself 'cause he works at ESPN ("Ohhh, I played catch with Drew Brees at lunch. I am so freaking awesome"). Sorry Schneed for cluttering the thread - it had been to long between gratuitous Smack smacks and now seemed as good a time as any.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I'm with BHA on this. Judge Nelson's decision puts the players in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I am not impressed with her "players will suffer irreparable harm" argument either. If I recall my injunction law, the loss of money, in and of itself, is not justification of "irreparable harm". So, J. Nelson seems to think that players are suffering irreparable harm b/c they can't negotiate and move? I dunno. Seems to me the players created the situation by decertifying and choosing to game the labor law rules. But for their decertification, the matter would have proceeded through the NRLB. IMHO, the players are doing all they can to avoid the spirit of the law and, instead, use the vagueries of the law as written to stick it to the big bad corporations.

PS I am also half drunk as I have been out having "Booze on the Porch Night" with the neighbors. So, if I am slightly less than coherent, please forgive me.

PPS: Smootsmack is full of crap, has no clue what he's talking about and is wayyy to impressed with himself 'cause he works at ESPN ("Ohhh, I played catch with Drew Brees at lunch. I am so freaking awesome"). Sorry Schneed for cluttering the thread - it had been to long between gratuitous Smack smacks and now seemed as good a time as any.

I think you meant "owners," not "players," and I agree with you and BHA. I think Nelson knows what she is doing. She's trying to get owners to get a CBA done now before they might face anti-trust music.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I think you meant "owners," not "players," and I agree with you and BHA. I think Nelson knows what she is doing. She's trying to get owners to get a CBA done now before they might face anti-trust music.

Yes. I meant owners.

IMHO Nelson should have stayed the lawsuit until the NLRB made a decision as to the players decision to decertify. IF the decertification was illegal, THEN the owners have no "anti-trust music" to face. Instead, in a case of judicial activism, Nelson injects herself into parralel proceedings writes the score, hires the musicians and rents the hall so that she can eventually force the owners to listen to her "Anti-trust Symphony In Green".

As I said, result oriented judiciating as opposed to law based judginess.

It's just not very scientifical.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. I meant owners.

IMHO Nelson should have stayed the lawsuit until the NLRB made a decision as to the players decision to decertify. IF the decertification was illegal, THEN the owners have no "anti-trust music" to face. Instead, in a case of judicial activism, Nelson injects herself into parralel proceedings writes the score, hires the musicians and rents the hall so that she can eventually force the owners to listen to her "Anti-trust Symphony In Green".

As I said, result oriented judiciating as opposed to law based judginess.

It's just not very scientifical.

I'm kinda with you on this. I think the owners had a good claim in regards to the players admitting they were decertifying in order to have some leverage against the owners. Which is illegal. I think it was also proven because the players chose to decertify several hours prior to the time limit. Clearly the players were not interested in trying to work anything out until the last minute. The reason the players won in the 80's was because they decertified after the time limit showing they were in good faith trying to work out an agreement.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. I meant owners.

IMHO Nelson should have stayed the lawsuit until the NLRB made a decision as to the players decision to decertify. IF the decertification was illegal, THEN the owners have no "anti-trust music" to face. Instead, in a case of judicial activism, Nelson injects herself into parralel proceedings writes the score, hires the musicians and rents the hall so that she can eventually force the owners to listen to her "Anti-trust Symphony In Green".

As I said, result oriented judiciating as opposed to law based judginess.

It's just not very scientifical.

I think you have your finger on the pulse here. Nelson does seem to be engaging in results oriented decision making. She has left the owners with only one palatable escape from their "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation: make real compromise moves on a deal on a new CBA now.

Since I am not a legal purist, I like it. The owners have struck me as both greedy and arrogant, and as such in need of a swift kick in the pants. Nelson has delivered that swift kick.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I'm with BHA on this. Judge Nelson's decision puts the players in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I am not impressed with her "players will suffer irreparable harm" argument either. If I recall my injunction law, the loss of money, in and of itself, is not justification of "irreparable harm". So, J. Nelson seems to think that players are suffering irreparable harm b/c they can't negotiate and move? I dunno. Seems to me the players created the situation by decertifying and choosing to game the labor law rules. But for their decertification, the matter would have proceeded through the NRLB. IMHO, the players are doing all they can to avoid the spirit of the law and, instead, use the vagueries of the law as written to stick it to the big bad corporations.

PS I am also half drunk as I have been out having "Booze on the Porch Night" with the neighbors. So, if I am slightly less than coherent, please forgive me.

PPS: Smootsmack is full of crap, has no clue what he's talking about and is wayyy to impressed with himself 'cause he works at ESPN ("Ohhh, I played catch with Drew Brees at lunch. I am so freaking awesome"). Sorry Schneed for cluttering the thread - it had been to long between gratuitous Smack smacks and now seemed as good a time as any.

You'd be really jealous of what I'm doing tomorrow...

Anyhow, teams will be notified in the morning of how to proceed. I suspect it will be "don't do anything for now"

[hooskins]

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.

Your last sentences sum it up the best. Truely a mess. I honestly felt the owners had a huge advantage over the players until some of the recent rulings.

Simply speaking, the owners have the bankroll and they can afford to deal with short term losses. Players, on the other hand, relatively need money more than owners in the short run and they have finite careers. Not sure how long the average NFL career is, but not more than 6 to 8 years I suspect. They have to play now to get paid and if some of these recent rulings didn't occur the owners would be fine to keep things as is, since they can afford to do so.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Your last sentences sum it up the best. Truely a mess. I honestly felt the owners had a huge advantage over the players until some of the recent rulings.

Simply speaking, the owners have the bankroll and they can afford to deal with short term losses. Players, on the other hand, relatively need money more than owners in the short run and they have finite careers. Not sure how long the average NFL career is, but not more than 6 to 8 years I suspect. They have to play now to get paid and if some of these recent rulings didn't occur the owners would be fine to keep things as is, since they can afford to do so.

Not too many industries have built-in safeguards to ensure profits.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You'd be really jealous of what I'm doing tomorrow...

Anyhow, teams will be notified in the morning of how to proceed. I suspect it will be "don't do anything for now"

If you're kicking the futbol with Ochocinco or speed skating with Apolo Anton Ohno, I'm gonna be super jealous.

[SBXVII]

By the way I love this commercial..

YouTube - Coors Light Home Draft Commercial: (You're not on the list)

I told my wife she was not on the list either.... lol.

[SmootSmack]

Schneed just threw his laptop across his room...so let's get back on track here

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Schneed just threw his laptop across his room...so let's get back on track here

he saved it, thought that it was traveling too fast down the hallway so he jumped in front of it

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

he saved it, thought that it was traveling too fast down the hallway so he jumped in front of it

He might want to try out for the Caps... lol. If he can stop a laptop he can stop a puck.

[GTripp0012]

It would seem like the NFL could get around this problem by setting a specific time to begin the new league year sometime in the immediate future. It's not exactly an extension lockout to say that the league year shall begin at 11:59 pm on Sunday night. Just treat draft weekend like the time between the super bowl and the March 4th start of the league year.

[SmootSmack]

NFL Lockout: Questions and answers | NJ.com