8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

[CRedskinsRule]

On Sirius (seriously he was on!) I counted at least three blatant, imo, fallacies that D Smith is trying to get people to believe -

1) the deal on the table at the end of mediation was the worst deal in the history of sports. It is a fallacy because regardless if the deal was a good or bad deal, I am confident that the players from the before the early 80s (you know the ones getting maybe 200 a month if they are lucky) was far worse. Rather than stick with a semi valid line that the deal was worse than any since collective bargaining started or some other line he chooses to demonize the other side and misrepresent the truth when the truth could still be seen favoring his side.

2). The owners are the first to ever sue to lock their doors, or something to that effect, again the players were the plaintiffs and filed suit, the owners appealed that decision but that is not the same as suing to shut the doors and as a legal minded individual D Smith certainly understands that. The owners were definitely seeking to shut their doors, but let's be honest and admit that that is a valid labor tool that has been used before. Also I believe the players have gone on strike in the past so both sides have used their tools when it serves their purpose.

3) the last one is a little more touchy, but basically "the players and fan want football and the owners don't". This, if he truly believes it is lunacy. The owners clearly want football, on their terms, just as much as the players want football, on their terms. Both sides need to drop concern for the fans because it is tangential at best. As for DSmiths statement again it is hyperbole meant to demonize the owners and galvanize the players. I don't see how that leads to a resolution any time soon.

This goes to what JR was saying, D Smith truly wants to dazzle people with grandiose (BS) statements - worst deal ever, first league to sue to shut doors. Rather then speak in terms which draw sides closer, he uses words to widen the gap, and push the sides apart. Granted the nfl may use words without meaning, but when they talk their words are on point about working together, getting a deal done, trying to make something that is good for players and owners. You don't here those words from D Smith right now.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today. And maybe instead of serious I should have said good offers.

I understand that the owners concern is more about the long term fate of the NFL than perhaps the players, but from my vantage point I still have a tough time siding with the owners. Regardless of my opinion of how some reps on the player side are handling things.

I'm confident (famous last words?) a deal will be worked out by the time it truly needs to.

I'm curious about why you'd side with the players honestly. I think you'd agree both sides are being greedy (which is perfectly acceptable in this case to me.) Given only that I'd be hard pressed to take any side at all. But add in that the players have consistently positioned themselves to pursue litigation and have now pursued said litigation by pretty dubious means I can't see how anyone can side with them. The balance of good faith spent lies firmly with the owners in my opinion and that is the only thing that tilts me towards the owners.

Edit: I think it is telling that we have a group of 32 business owners making BILLIONS of dollars a year crying poor and slowly but surely public opinion seems to be shifting firmly to their side. If there was ever a less sympathetic entity than the NFL owners crying poor I cannot think of it. Yet the players are consistently positioning themselves on the wrong side of "right".

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

Well...there was a deadline, and some decision had to be made. And the ultimatum offered to the NFL for another extension was, of course, 10 years of audited financials. In the next 15 minutes. Which, depending on your perspective, was either the very first in a series of moves that could be grouped as nothing more than posturing, or another move in the long line of a series of moves aimed at swaying public opinion. I think only someone who was completely delusional would consider that good faith bargaining.

And I don't think that De Smith is delusional. I think he's quite good at his job. But the thing I want to know is, why did the players take this to the District court in Minnesota if they knew it would just be appealed to the 8th Circut anyway? The only logical reason I can fathom is that it's not going to stop here, but it's headed to the Supreme Court. And THAT was the plan since decertification.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

Amen.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today.

...

Just out of curiosity SS, are you referring to the boylan mediation or that the 2 met separate and apart from that?

[GTripp0012]

I am not alleging for the record that the players should have accepted the March 11th proposal by the league. It wasn't good enough. But they should have extended the deadline and pushed off that framework with the decertification threat as leverage.

Because now that it's gone through the 8th circut, I see the supreme court as the only possible reason the players did any of this in the first place. De Smith, I believe, was smart enough to know that the district court PI ruling wouldn't hold up on appeal, and he more or less alluded to as much in post-ruling interviews.

[SBXVII]

Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy | ProFootballTalk

“[W]e have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”

In finding that the league was able to satisfy the legal requirements for the issuance of the stay, the Eighth Circuit has in many respects knocked down Judge Nelson’s conclusion that the lockout should be lifted. Most powerful in this regard is the quote pasted above. If the Eighth Circuit believes the NFL has made a strong showing of success as to the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the present facts, then the Eighth Circuit necessarily believes that the players won’t succeed on that key issue as the lawsuit proceeds. And if the Eighth Circuit believes that the players have no chance of proving that the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits a court-order lifting the lockout later, the Eighth Circuit will not issue a court order lifting the lockout now.

[CRedskinsRule]

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.

[Ruhskins]

IF there is football next season, it's going to be a piece of sh*t year. I hope both sides are happy about this.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just out of curiosity SS, are you referring to the boylan mediation or that the 2 met separate and apart from that?

Both, though the details of their supposed conversation apart from the mediation are suspect at best. For the purposes of my argument, I'm going to say they had a few beers at happy hour tonight while shooting some pool..but I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that Smith is just running to the podium at every turn and not doing anything to work toward an agreement.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

My beef is as follows.

Owners and Goodell:
- Complain about the split and talk of the players getting 60% when in fact they only get 53% which is less then the NHL, NBA, and I'm pretty sure the MLB.

- Only a small portion of NFL contracts are guaranteed so aside from paying less in salary then the other three leagues the owners can terminate contracts only owing a fraction of what the other leagues pay.

- Goodell talks of fans being excited about the prospect of an 18 game season because the preseason games don't meet the standard set by the NFL for quality. The reality is the majority of fans don't want an 18 game season because they have little interest in increasing the risk of injury to their key players.

- Also sad is the fact that part of the reason the fans hate preaseason games is they have to pay full price. Common sense dictates that the owners should stop charging regular season prices, Owners on the other hand don't want to loose that money and instead propose two extra games even if it means putting key players at risk.

- The total revenue earned by the NFL has increased in a recession ergo proving that for the foreseeable future the NFL is recession proof.

- These stadiums that the owners claim they need more money to build are mostly being paid for by tax payers and cities. Not the owners or the league. IIRC the Bidwells paid something like $9 million for their stadium after cost were covered by the city of Phoenix and the University of Phoenix with sponsorship.

-Using the TV deals and exclusivity contracts as a rainy day fund.

- Threatening the fans with essentially an anarchy system. 'No draft, no parity, etc'

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

- Rather then engage in serious negotiations the NFLPA is simply trying to bully it's way through the courts. They are more interested in power mongering and attempting to acquire leverage rather then act like adults and work towards a CBA thats good for everyone. Collectively the NFLPA has virtually zero idea as to how to approach negotiation. Rather then viewing it as an adversarial form of team work they approach it like a football game where there is a clearly defined winner and looser.

- Lack of counter offers. Just as I've been saying rather then come up with an alternate proposal the NFLPA's solution is simply to storm out and complain to the media about getting a raw deal. The owners have offered deals that at the very least have served as a great starting point. Instead De Smith comes out and calls it "the worst deal in sports."

- Not immediately shooting down the idea of an NFLPA draft event to compete with the draft.

- Decertification. Another attempt to acquire leverage and exploit the legal system. No better then the owners rainy day fund.

- Insisting on seeing the books for themselves. Third party audits aren't good enough for the NFLPA. Again focused more on winning and acquiring leverage rather then moving things along and finding a solution to the lockout.


The owners may have started the lockout but I blame the players for allowing it to continue for as long as it has.

F'ing brilliant. Winner.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Both, though the details of their supposed conversation apart from the mediation are suspect at best. For the purposes of my argument, I'm going to say they had a few beers at happy hour tonight while shooting some pool..but I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that Smith is just running to the podium at every turn and not doing anything to work toward an agreement.

Gotcha. That you know of, has D Smith, or any player given a proposal or negotiating points since they walked away from the mediation?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.

I always felt the tv money contract and going around to all 32 teams to vote on the right to decertify served the same purpose in this standoff. Neither was in good faith or bad faith, but were simply pre-negotiation leveraging. To decertify or lockout before talks broke off would have been the first bad faith move.

If the NFLPA had let the decertification deadline pass and then the owners went, shut off mediation, and locked the union out anyway, then that would have been an act of bad faith and I think the public would be squarely on the players side. But the NFLPA would be caught with far less leverage than they are now (their only play would have been to wait out the owners). And I don't think Smith trusted that the owners wouldn't stab him in the back if he didn't decertify.

A fantastic Prisoner's Dilemma though. And at the end of the day, I suppose that all the March negotiations ended up as was an exercise in game theory.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

F'ing brilliant. Winner.

Please note that this has to be the shortest post ever from JR. I want to thank everybody involved in helping him learn how to use a minimum of words effectively!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.

Honestly I'm not sure it was a bad faith move as much as it was either dumb (as in they didn't ever actually consider that it was wrong) or they weren't convinced it wasn't kosher. But I would certainly concede that neither side has the claim to being totally "right" or even close.