Williams and Clarret may be out of Draft

Defensewins · 03-31-2004, 12:37 PM

The NFL has done it again. Regardless of which side of this argument you side with, the NFL again has used it's vast political power and influence to get an expedited appeal hearing. Even the NFL lawyer presenting the appeal was quoted as saying, ".. it's quite unusual for a court to impose such a quick schedule." Hhhmmmm?
Also, what a coincidence that the appeal will be heard on April 19th and 20th. Just days before the April 24th Draft. If the NFL wins this round of appeals it is by no means over, but it will block Williams and Clarret from participating in this years draft. Because there would be no time to get the appeal heard in the US Supreme court. The NFL must be in the pockets of these appeals court judges, because they are very confidant they will win this particular appeal.
To put this into perspective, it take six months to a year to have an appeal heard about important case matters like murders, rapes, child moleters, etc. But the NFL can get an expedited hearing about letting 19 and 20 year olds play football in a month.
Our justice system is for sale.
I hope for the Redskins this appeal is not successful. We need USC WR Williams there so more talent drops to our pick.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ett/index.html

Ade Jimoh Fan Club · 03-31-2004, 12:55 PM

As much as we do want Williams up there to push KWII and ST our way, I would love to see that arrogant son-of-a-bitch Clarett get denied! That BS about not working out at the combine was very disappointing.

Gmanc711 · 03-31-2004, 01:01 PM

I really dont think Williams will make that much of a difference, if we stay at the #5 pick. I think Fitzgerld will be the only one picked before 5.

sportscurmudgeon · 03-31-2004, 01:07 PM

There is no doubt that the NFL is big and powerful. However saying they have legal clout is contradicted by the facts. Just about every time they are in a courtroom, they lose. Tell me the last major court case the NFL won...

The way to get an expedited hearing is to convince the court that some kind of irreparable harm would be done if the expedited hearing were not granted. If Clarett had lost, it would have been his lawyers asking for the expedited schedule because without an appeal he would miss out on the draft in april and he would never get back the year he would have to wait until next year's draft. Well, the NFL can use the same argument that without an appeal being heard there is the potential for irreparable harm to their draft system.

So the court will hear the case and it may or may not issue a ruling prior to the draft. If the NFL loses here, it can postpone the draft while it tries to appeal to the Supreme Court. Just becaue the draft is scheudled for april at the moment does not mean the NFL can't postpone it. And if Clarett loses, his lawyers will and for an injunction preventing the NFL from holding its draft until the Clarett side can seek an apeal in the Supreme Court.

This case is not over yet. And that has nothing at all to do with the NFL's "influence over the court system".

I'm still waiting to hear the last major court case the NFL won...

Defensewins · 03-31-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

However saying they have legal clout is contradicted by the facts....
I'm still waiting to hear the last major court case the NFL won...

Ha--HA
Hey Sportscurmudgeon your so called "facts" are very wrong!
Here is a very big case the NFL won on appeal:
On March 27th , 1996, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a lower court when NFL Players filed an antitrust lawsuit against the league and won $30.3 million in triple damages. But the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and later the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the award on the ground that multiple-employer groups are shielded from such lawsuits. They ruled the NFL is exempt from Anti-trust laws.

That is a major ruling saying the NFL is exempt from Anti-trust laws, wouldn't you say Mr. Facts- man?

Also to say the NFL got an expedited appeal hearing because they convinced the court that some kind of irreparable harm would be done to the game is a bunch crap. The earlier court case making 18 y.o. players draft eligible does not mean that any NFL team HAS to draft them. Each team can say these players are just not good enough to play in the NFL. The "FACT" that USC WR Williams will be drafted in the first top 6 picks blows the NFL's case out of the water. Some 19 and 20 year old players are ready and good enough to play in the NFL.
Are you still waiting?

JoeRedskin · 03-31-2004, 01:43 PM

I got one. Does anyone remember the guy who sued the Ravens for using a logo he designed and not paying him? Well, the Ravens/NFL (he sued both) lost on the issue of improper use BUT, as to damages, the guy got nothing b/c he failed to show that what he would have received if he had been hired by the Ravens/NFL to provide a logo.

BTW - the guy is my building's security guard.

SmootSmack · 03-31-2004, 01:44 PM

Anyone else remember the famous NFL vs. USFL case where the USFL sued for like $1.7 billion but ended up with $3?

drew54 · 03-31-2004, 02:03 PM

I think the USFL case they were awarded 1 dollar. And due to late fees and the NFL not paying it, the new figure ended up $3.17, which the USFL Commish never cashed, he just hung it on his wall.

JoeRedskin · 03-31-2004, 02:10 PM

Actually, in the USFL case, damages were assessed at $1.00, but, since it was an anti-monopoly trade case, the damages were trebled to $3.00 with interest of 17 cents.

SmootSmack · 03-31-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Actually, in the USFL case, damages were assessed at $1.00, but, since it was an anti-monopoly trade case, the damages were trebled to $3.00 with interest of 17 cents.

That's right. It was trebled and now Chet Simmons (former USFL commissioner and ESPN CEO) has it hanging in his office

Welcome to the Warpath JoeRedskin!

JoeRedskin · 03-31-2004, 02:23 PM

Thanks!

Actually posted my "Glad to be here" post under one of the mini-camp reports. ("Hi! I am first time poster, long time reader" sorta thing).

BrudLee · 03-31-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

There is no doubt that the NFL is big and powerful. However saying they have legal clout is contradicted by the facts. Just about every time they are in a courtroom, they lose. Tell me the last major court case the NFL won...

The way to get an expedited hearing is to convince the court that some kind of irreparable harm would be done if the expedited hearing were not granted. If Clarett had lost, it would have been his lawyers asking for the expedited schedule because without an appeal he would miss out on the draft in april and he would never get back the year he would have to wait until next year's draft. Well, the NFL can use the same argument that without an appeal being heard there is the potential for irreparable harm to their draft system.

So the court will hear the case and it may or may not issue a ruling prior to the draft. If the NFL loses here, it can postpone the draft while it tries to appeal to the Supreme Court. Just becaue the draft is scheudled for april at the moment does not mean the NFL can't postpone it. And if Clarett loses, his lawyers will and for an injunction preventing the NFL from holding its draft until the Clarett side can seek an apeal in the Supreme Court.

This case is not over yet. And that has nothing at all to do with the NFL's "influence over the court system".

I'm still waiting to hear the last major court case the NFL won...

Excellent point. If the league had as much legal clout as the previous poster implied, Al Davis wouldn't kick their butts down the courthouse steps every two weeks.

The league may or may not win this one, I think the court's willingness to expedite the hearing has more to do with respect for continuity within the league. If the draft occurs and then the league wins, is the ruling rendered moot by the fact that Williams and Clarett are in the league? Are these two the only players who will be allowed to circumvent the rule? Is the entire draft invalid? If so, will the Vikings get their pick in on time during the second draft?

backrow · 03-31-2004, 04:02 PM

That will be the question of the Draft! Will the Vikes get their pick in?

sportscurmudgeon · 03-31-2004, 04:31 PM

Excuse me but let's review:

The NFL is indeed subject to anti-trust law. That is why they LOST the suit to the USFL. The fact that the jury only awarded the USFL $1 in damages and $3 in triple damages (plus interest) does not change the fact that the NFL was found to be in violation of the US anti-trust laws. The fact of this case is the the NFL is GUILTY of violation of the anti-trust laws but the USFL had no way to appeal the ruling because it had won the case. Only the NFL could appeal and of course it chose not to do that. But put it into the loss column for the NFL.

The NFL wins most - if not all - of its copywright and trademark actions but that is not exactly legal powerhouse territory. If you have something that someone else takes and uses, you have a very strong case against that party even if you are a "little guy". Unless of course you neglect to copyright the property or apply for a trademark or neglect to protect your trademark or something like that. You may recall that a tiny public TV station in Nebraska was able to sue NBC (and parent company GE) successfully when NBC adopted a logo that was something the little station had previously used. Copywright and trademark law is pretty mundane stuff. If the guy with the Ravens' logo had it registered properly and was timely in his filings and followed all the proper procedures, he probably would have prevailed. I'd have to suspect that there were procedural flaws in his case or he would have won.

The Supreme Copurt ruling you cited applies to labor law and whether or not the NFL could be sued by its players for one aspect of what used to be called "Plan B free agency".. However, it is hardly the sweeping ruling you imply because if it were, the league would be entitled to throw out the bargaining agreement and free agency and all that stuff if it wanted to. If you actually think they have the legal right to do that, then you need to call Gene Upshaw on the phone and have him explain this to you. The NFL can't do that.

Please recall that the NFL was sued by Al Davis when he wanted to move his team. The NFL lost. Any owner can move his team when he wants to; the league would LOVE to have an anti-trust exemption like baseball has so that it can prevent that from happening. Now all the NFL can do is to try to control team movement.

Remember when the Colts left Baltimore in the dark of night and then when the Browns moved to Baltimore. The league could not stop that. But baseball can stop the Expos from moving here or anywhere else because baseball has an anti-trust exemption from a case in the 1920s and because of that exemption baseball can mandate where its teams play their games.

The closest thing the NFL has had recently to a big win in court was when Al Davis sued them yet again claiming that he - and the Raiders - held exclusive territorial rights to the Los Angeles market and that Davis had a right of first refusal for moving the Raiders back to LA if the NFL ever decided to put a team in LA. Davis lost that suit.

Please recall that the NFL was sued by its players union twice with regard to free agency and the NFL lost both times. Even today, if there is a dispute that relates to the CBA and the court decision that forms the basis of the league's operation with its players, the same judge in Minnesota (Doty is his name) who ruled against the NFL has to review the outcome of the dispute to be sure that it conforms to his court ruling.

I didn't say the arguments about irreparable harm made any sense or were actually true. All I said was that these kinds of appeals are made to courts all the time and courts grant those motions as often as not. Like I said, if Clarett loses on appeal, his lawyers will probably seek an injunction against the NFL holding its draft and they'll argue for "irreparable harm" even though there are such things as late entry/supplemental drafts that have brought lots of players into the league (Cris Carter is one.). In that case, Clarett won't be "right" but a court could easily grant the injunction anyway.

I promise you that the judges in this case could care less where Williams and/or Clarett and/or any other player might be drafted. The NFL's case was blown out of the water based on the right of an adult to make a living in his/her chosen profession once they reach the age of majority so long as the profession is not illegal or one that is regulated for some kind of public safety. Clarett's lawyers did not argue where he would be drafted - or even that he would; they argued he had the right to choose to enter the draft to see if he was sufficiently competent to play NFL football. I did not read the transcript of the case - and I have no interest in doing so - but I would wager a signficiant sum that the judge never said anything like, "Hold on their Mr. NFL. According to fan webboards and ESPN mock drafts, the plaintiff is projected as a late first round pick so you can take you case and stick it in your ear."

The NFL can make a lot of things happen the way it wants them to happen by greasing some palms and dealing with politicians and mobilizing its allies in various areas to get things done. They can threaten to approve and expedite a franchise move if a city does not fork over the funds to build a new stadium; that would be called extortion if you or I did it, but they can do it and they have done it. They can trade a future Super Bowl game site for a new stadium; they'll likely to that for NYC. They can promise to withhold a Super Bowl game site from a place where they don't like something about the stadium deal; they did that in LA in the mid-90s. They are rich and powerful. But their record in the courts is not very impressive at all.

By the way, do you know who was the NFL counsel who lost the case to Al Davis that allows the teams to move around and who lost the case to the USFL?

sportscurmudgeon · 03-31-2004, 05:31 PM

Defensewins:

I am not a lawyer; I never spent even a single day of my life in law school. If you are a lawyer, then help me out here.

I just spent the last hour or so looking for the case you cited in your posting. The only thing I could find is "Brown vs Pro-Football Inc." which was a case won by the NFL on appeal. It did NOT however say the NFL was exempt from anti-trust laws.

What this case was about was a suit filed by players saying that it was illegal for the NFL to have a uniform salary scale for practice squad players. The players alleged this violated the anti-trust laws. The appeals court said that the class action suit brought by the practice players was not valid because that kind of employment was exempt from anti trust laws.

That is VERY different from your implication that the ruling makes the NFL exempt from the anti-trust laws. If you meant to refer to a different case, please provide more details.

03-31-2004, 12:37 PM	#1
Defensewins Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 3,749	Williams and Clarret may be out of Draft The NFL has done it again. Regardless of which side of this argument you side with, the NFL again has used it's vast political power and influence to get an expedited appeal hearing. Even the NFL lawyer presenting the appeal was quoted as saying, ".. it's quite unusual for a court to impose such a quick schedule." Hhhmmmm? Also, what a coincidence that the appeal will be heard on April 19th and 20th. Just days before the April 24th Draft. If the NFL wins this round of appeals it is by no means over, but it will block Williams and Clarret from participating in this years draft. Because there would be no time to get the appeal heard in the US Supreme court. The NFL must be in the pockets of these appeals court judges, because they are very confidant they will win this particular appeal. To put this into perspective, it take six months to a year to have an appeal heard about important case matters like murders, rapes, child moleters, etc. But the NFL can get an expedited hearing about letting 19 and 20 year olds play football in a month. Our justice system is for sale. I hope for the Redskins this appeal is not successful. We need USC WR Williams there so more talent drops to our pick. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ett/index.html Last edited by Defensewins; 03-31-2004 at 02:21 PM.

03-31-2004, 01:07 PM	#4
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	There is no doubt that the NFL is big and powerful. However saying they have legal clout is contradicted by the facts. Just about every time they are in a courtroom, they lose. Tell me the last major court case the NFL won... The way to get an expedited hearing is to convince the court that some kind of irreparable harm would be done if the expedited hearing were not granted. If Clarett had lost, it would have been his lawyers asking for the expedited schedule because without an appeal he would miss out on the draft in april and he would never get back the year he would have to wait until next year's draft. Well, the NFL can use the same argument that without an appeal being heard there is the potential for irreparable harm to their draft system. So the court will hear the case and it may or may not issue a ruling prior to the draft. If the NFL loses here, it can postpone the draft while it tries to appeal to the Supreme Court. Just becaue the draft is scheudled for april at the moment does not mean the NFL can't postpone it. And if Clarett loses, his lawyers will and for an injunction preventing the NFL from holding its draft until the Clarett side can seek an apeal in the Supreme Court. This case is not over yet. And that has nothing at all to do with the NFL's "influence over the court system". I'm still waiting to hear the last major court case the NFL won... __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-31-2004, 01:44 PM	#7
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Anyone else remember the famous NFL vs. USFL case where the USFL sued for like $1.7 billion but ended up with $3? __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

03-31-2004, 04:02 PM	#13
backrow The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 36.28 x 76.22 Age: 73 Posts: 1,812	Brudlee! That will be the question of the Draft! Will the Vikes get their pick in? __________________ '37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship!

03-31-2004, 04:31 PM	#14
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Excuse me but let's review: The NFL is indeed subject to anti-trust law. That is why they LOST the suit to the USFL. The fact that the jury only awarded the USFL $1 in damages and $3 in triple damages (plus interest) does not change the fact that the NFL was found to be in violation of the US anti-trust laws. The fact of this case is the the NFL is GUILTY of violation of the anti-trust laws but the USFL had no way to appeal the ruling because it had won the case. Only the NFL could appeal and of course it chose not to do that. But put it into the loss column for the NFL. The NFL wins most - if not all - of its copywright and trademark actions but that is not exactly legal powerhouse territory. If you have something that someone else takes and uses, you have a very strong case against that party even if you are a "little guy". Unless of course you neglect to copyright the property or apply for a trademark or neglect to protect your trademark or something like that. You may recall that a tiny public TV station in Nebraska was able to sue NBC (and parent company GE) successfully when NBC adopted a logo that was something the little station had previously used. Copywright and trademark law is pretty mundane stuff. If the guy with the Ravens' logo had it registered properly and was timely in his filings and followed all the proper procedures, he probably would have prevailed. I'd have to suspect that there were procedural flaws in his case or he would have won. The Supreme Copurt ruling you cited applies to labor law and whether or not the NFL could be sued by its players for one aspect of what used to be called "Plan B free agency".. However, it is hardly the sweeping ruling you imply because if it were, the league would be entitled to throw out the bargaining agreement and free agency and all that stuff if it wanted to. If you actually think they have the legal right to do that, then you need to call Gene Upshaw on the phone and have him explain this to you. The NFL can't do that. Please recall that the NFL was sued by Al Davis when he wanted to move his team. The NFL lost. Any owner can move his team when he wants to; the league would LOVE to have an anti-trust exemption like baseball has so that it can prevent that from happening. Now all the NFL can do is to try to control team movement. Remember when the Colts left Baltimore in the dark of night and then when the Browns moved to Baltimore. The league could not stop that. But baseball can stop the Expos from moving here or anywhere else because baseball has an anti-trust exemption from a case in the 1920s and because of that exemption baseball can mandate where its teams play their games. The closest thing the NFL has had recently to a big win in court was when Al Davis sued them yet again claiming that he - and the Raiders - held exclusive territorial rights to the Los Angeles market and that Davis had a right of first refusal for moving the Raiders back to LA if the NFL ever decided to put a team in LA. Davis lost that suit. Please recall that the NFL was sued by its players union twice with regard to free agency and the NFL lost both times. Even today, if there is a dispute that relates to the CBA and the court decision that forms the basis of the league's operation with its players, the same judge in Minnesota (Doty is his name) who ruled against the NFL has to review the outcome of the dispute to be sure that it conforms to his court ruling. I didn't say the arguments about irreparable harm made any sense or were actually true. All I said was that these kinds of appeals are made to courts all the time and courts grant those motions as often as not. Like I said, if Clarett loses on appeal, his lawyers will probably seek an injunction against the NFL holding its draft and they'll argue for "irreparable harm" even though there are such things as late entry/supplemental drafts that have brought lots of players into the league (Cris Carter is one.). In that case, Clarett won't be "right" but a court could easily grant the injunction anyway. I promise you that the judges in this case could care less where Williams and/or Clarett and/or any other player might be drafted. The NFL's case was blown out of the water based on the right of an adult to make a living in his/her chosen profession once they reach the age of majority so long as the profession is not illegal or one that is regulated for some kind of public safety. Clarett's lawyers did not argue where he would be drafted - or even that he would; they argued he had the right to choose to enter the draft to see if he was sufficiently competent to play NFL football. I did not read the transcript of the case - and I have no interest in doing so - but I would wager a signficiant sum that the judge never said anything like, "Hold on their Mr. NFL. According to fan webboards and ESPN mock drafts, the plaintiff is projected as a late first round pick so you can take you case and stick it in your ear." The NFL can make a lot of things happen the way it wants them to happen by greasing some palms and dealing with politicians and mobilizing its allies in various areas to get things done. They can threaten to approve and expedite a franchise move if a city does not fork over the funds to build a new stadium; that would be called extortion if you or I did it, but they can do it and they have done it. They can trade a future Super Bowl game site for a new stadium; they'll likely to that for NYC. They can promise to withhold a Super Bowl game site from a place where they don't like something about the stadium deal; they did that in LA in the mid-90s. They are rich and powerful. But their record in the courts is not very impressive at all. By the way, do you know who was the NFL counsel who lost the case to Al Davis that allows the teams to move around and who lost the case to the USFL? __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-31-2004, 12:55 PM	#2
Ade Jimoh Fan Club Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 410	As much as we do want Williams up there to push KWII and ST our way, I would love to see that arrogant son-of-a-bitch Clarett get denied! That BS about not working out at the combine was very disappointing.

03-31-2004, 01:01 PM	#3
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 39 Posts: 7,506	I really dont think Williams will make that much of a difference, if we stay at the #5 pick. I think Fitzgerld will be the only one picked before 5.

03-31-2004, 01:43 PM	#6
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	I got one. Does anyone remember the guy who sued the Ravens for using a logo he designed and not paying him? Well, the Ravens/NFL (he sued both) lost on the issue of improper use BUT, as to damages, the guy got nothing b/c he failed to show that what he would have received if he had been hired by the Ravens/NFL to provide a logo. BTW - the guy is my building's security guard.

03-31-2004, 02:03 PM	#8
drew54 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: IOWA Age: 42 Posts: 1,324	I think the USFL case they were awarded 1 dollar. And due to late fees and the NFL not paying it, the new figure ended up $3.17, which the USFL Commish never cashed, he just hung it on his wall.

03-31-2004, 02:10 PM	#9
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Actually, in the USFL case, damages were assessed at $1.00, but, since it was an anti-monopoly trade case, the damages were trebled to $3.00 with interest of 17 cents.

03-31-2004, 02:23 PM	#11
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Thanks! Actually posted my "Glad to be here" post under one of the mini-camp reports. ("Hi! I am first time poster, long time reader" sorta thing).

03-31-2004, 05:31 PM	#15
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Defensewins: I am not a lawyer; I never spent even a single day of my life in law school. If you are a lawyer, then help me out here. I just spent the last hour or so looking for the case you cited in your posting. The only thing I could find is "Brown vs Pro-Football Inc." which was a case won by the NFL on appeal. It did NOT however say the NFL was exempt from anti-trust laws. What this case was about was a suit filed by players saying that it was illegal for the NFL to have a uniform salary scale for practice squad players. The players alleged this violated the anti-trust laws. The appeals court said that the class action suit brought by the practice players was not valid because that kind of employment was exempt from anti trust laws. That is VERY different from your implication that the ruling makes the NFL exempt from the anti-trust laws. If you meant to refer to a different case, please provide more details. __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

Williams and Clarret may be out of Draft

Locker Room Main Forum