8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GMScud

One of my closest friends is a NY Jets fan and season ticket holder. Over the course of the next 6 months, the Jets will be taking $342/month out of his checking account. He'll get a refund if there's no season, but still, that's freaking ridiculous. The owners lockout the players, then proceed to rake the fans for ticket money?? How does that make any sense? Greedy SOB's.

Because fans allow it. Now owners get to make interest off that money they are collecting from the fans. They say there is a sucker born every minute, and NFL fans prove that statement to be correct.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Because fans allow it. Now owners get to make interest off that money they are collecting from the fans. They say there is a sucker born every minute, and NFL fans prove that statement to be correct.

....does that include you?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

....does that include you?

Hell no....lol

1) not buying season tickets
2) not buying NFL ticket (dont even have direct TV)
3) not buying gear


So I'm doing my part. :P If I were a season ticket holder, I certainly would not pay them my invoice with a lockout in progress.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Hell no....lol

1) not buying season tickets
2) not buying NFL ticket (dont even have direct TV)
3) not buying gear


So I'm doing my part. :P If I were a season ticket holder, I certainly would not pay them my invoice with a lockout in progress.

Unfortunately, someone else probably would. They would just cancel your subscription and say "Fine, will the next wise investor please step forward!" [Please note: the invisible sarcasm font was on for "wise investor"].

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Hell no....lol

1) not buying season tickets
2) not buying NFL ticket (dont even have direct TV)
3) not buying gear


So I'm doing my part. :P If I were a season ticket holder, I certainly would not pay them my invoice with a lockout in progress.

Well, you probably didn't buy season tickets before. Did you have NFL Ticket before, or direct TV? So, mostly they are losing the revenue from any gear you might buy, specifically the net profit of anything you might buy.

I see Snyder and Jones trembling in their accounting shoes now :cheeky-sm

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, you probably didn't buy season tickets before. Did you have NFL Ticket before, or direct TV? So, mostly they are losing the revenue from any gear you might buy, specifically the net profit of anything you might buy.

I see Snyder and Jones trembling in their accounting shoes now :cheeky-sm

Actually I think DirectTV has already paid the NFL. It's hard to imagine them not collecting on the Sunday Ticket subscriptions after giving the NFL so much up front for the rights.

[CRedskinsRule]

I have a question that I hope someone here can answer. If the 8th DCofA upholds its stay, and the lockout continues, can the NFLPA re-decertify at the 6month mark which the CBA speaks of, and invalidate the NFL's claim of a sham? I would think so. Then if the NFL can't argue sham, they could no longer lockout the players, correct?

Basically, what I am saying - but don't know if I am right - is that on 9-11(or 9-12 since 9-11 is a Sunday) the NFLPA, could re-form by vote of the players, and officially de-certify. Once they do that in accordance with the 2006 CBA, the owners would no longer be able to claim sham, and thus could not invoke labor law tools such as a lockout. If that is true, and I am right on that, then all this legal maneuvering now would simply have been a waste on both parties, which doesn't make sense to me, but I can't figure out why the above statements would not be true. Finally, if that's the case, then really we have wasted 2 1/2 months of this lockout that could have been spent negotiating, with out changing either sides legal position. After all, if the NFLPA had stayed as a union, the NFL locked them out, and they continued negotiating, what would have changed legally, or financially, for the players. And on Sep12th, if no deal was reached the NFLPA could have de-certified and the owners would have no recourse through the NLRB, or the courts, to fault it.

If all that is right, and I am not sure it is, this whole thing seems even more like the huge screw up that we all already know it as.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have a question that I hope someone here can answer. If the 8th DCofA upholds its stay, and the lockout continues, can the NFLPA re-decertify at the 6month mark which the CBA speaks of, and invalidate the NFL's claim of a sham? I would think so. Then if the NFL can't argue sham, they could no longer lockout the players, correct?

Basically, what I am saying - but don't know if I am right - is that on 9-11(or 9-12 since 9-11 is a Sunday) the NFLPA, could re-form by vote of the players, and officially de-certify. Once they do that in accordance with the 2006 CBA, the owners would no longer be able to claim sham, and thus could not invoke labor law tools such as a lockout. If that is true, and I am right on that, then all this legal maneuvering now would simply have been a waste on both parties, which doesn't make sense to me, but I can't figure out why the above statements would not be true. Finally, if that's the case, then really we have wasted 2 1/2 months of this lockout that could have been spent negotiating, with out changing either sides legal position. After all, if the NFLPA had stayed as a union, the NFL locked them out, and they continued negotiating, what would have changed legally, or financially, for the players. And on Sep12th, if no deal was reached the NFLPA could have de-certified and the owners would have no recourse through the NLRB, or the courts, to fault it.

If all that is right, and I am not sure it is, this whole thing seems even more like the huge screw up that we all already know it as.

Can the NFLPA re-decertify? They are already decertified, how can they re-decertify if they are already decertified? I'm confused.

If the courts find that the NFLPA's decertification is invalid then that mean's those Anti-Trust suits will also be invalid as well. It means the NFLPA would have to bargain as a union and the owners would have all the leverage. A lockout is going to occur with or without a union. That much is guaranteed.

[NC_Skins]

NFL slashes more employee salaries, raises replica jersey prices - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

LOL.....these guys are such douchebags.

I would say I'm shocked people still hand them money, but the truth is, people wait in long lines and countless waiting lists to hand these guys money. Our country has no hope anymore.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Can the NFLPA re-decertify? They are already decertified, how can they re-decertify if they are already decertified? I'm confused.

If the courts find that the NFLPA's decertification is invalid then that mean's those Anti-Trust suits will also be invalid as well. It means the NFLPA would have to bargain as a union and the owners would have all the leverage. A lockout is going to occur with or without a union. That much is guaranteed.

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

Well, they had to file the decertification in the court by 5pm that day the CBA expired. That's why they walked out 6 hours early. They are technically decertified as of right now.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Well, they had to file the decertification in the court by 5pm that day the CBA expired. That's why they walked out 6 hours early. They are technically decertified as of right now.

No. They did not legally decertify. CR is right. They filed a disclaimer of interest which the media has repeatedly purported as decertification. Which it is not. By law. Different things legally. I have no read on the case-law but commonsense says the 8th isn't going to all the trouble they have been so far to simply let them off on a technicality like that. But the law isn't always based in commonsense.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

No. They did not legally decertify. CR is right. They filed a disclaimer of interest which the media has repeatedly purported as decertification. Which it is not. By law. Different things legally. I have no read on the case-law but commonsense says the 8th isn't going to all the trouble they have been so far to simply let them off on a technicality like that. But the law isn't always based in commonsense.

To clarify my point. Legal de-certification is an indepth process, which couldn't be done with just a letter to the judge like the NFLPA did. However, they certainly now have time to go through and file the appropriate paperwork if they so choose. The main differences, one the disclaimer can be revoked quickly if needed. The 2nd part and what I wonder, is that the disclaimer had to be filed before the CBA was expired, or else they fell under the 6month rule. Now we are eating away at those 6months that were supposed to be a kick in everybody's butt to get one last gasp of a deal done. Instead, we are watching both sides run around in the legal process, and by the time it all gets resolved, the NFLPA will be able to decertify.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Now we are eating away at those 6months that were supposed to be a kick in everybody's butt to get one last gasp of a deal done. Instead, we are watching both sides run around in the legal process, and by the time it all gets resolved, the NFLPA will be able to decertify.

Admittedly and thankfully I havent been following this thing but I have a similar concern. To my understanding the 8th circuit or any other court is not going to tell them how to split the 9 bil, the court is just there to decide whether or not the negotiating tactics are legal (can the NFLPA decertify, can the NFL lockout the players, was the tv deal done in bad faith to give the owners insurance in case of a lockout, etc...).

At the end of the day, after the courts rulings are final and many months of non-negotiating has passed, the NFL and NFLPA still need to sit down and come to an agreement on how to split the 9 bil.

If, in the end, they just basically split the 9 bil 50/50, all this crap and grand standing was done for nothing.

One side better win and make this drawn out legal battle worth it. I think Goddell was right, this thing isnt going to be decided in court but at the negotiating table. The court cant force the 2 sides to agree.

They should just split the 9 bil and be done with this crap. If thats what they do in the end, really eff them both.

[CRedskinsRule]

For what it's worth. In my opinion the huge win that was out there for the players was all the non cash benefits they could get from the owners in exchange for a larger exemption. No books need be shown (win for owners) for any of these type ideas:

reduce restricted free agency to 3 years.
impose a 1 year maximum on franchise tags
reduce or eliminate mandatory ota's, even changing bonus structures so that they can't be used as hammers
increased health benefits post career (on this one, the owners would probably ask to enlarge the exemption, but it seems worth it to me)
remove 18 games completely (heck we all figure the owners through that in as a bargaining chip, so use it for best gains)

there are probably more ways too. So rather than scream show us the books, just use it as a tool- no books, ok, healthcare for everyone. 1.4b exemption ok pensions start at age 50, not 55. 1.5b, ok, unrestricted after 3 years for everyone.

I believe the owners were expecting and willing to handle that negotiation, but instead we get a steady diet of war, books, and lawsuits, that none of the owners are going to buy into as a negotiation.

Dang it, put me at a table with a bunch of vet min/RFA guys, and we will get a deal done!!!