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

artmonkforhallofamein07 · 04-27-2011, 11:20 PM

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

Schneed10 · 04-27-2011, 11:24 PM

Quote:

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.

Lotus · 04-27-2011, 11:25 PM

Quote:

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.

hooskins · 04-27-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cam Jordan and Matt Hasselbeck?

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

Lolll

Lotus · 04-27-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-27-2011, 11:35 PM

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.

Dirtbag59 · 04-27-2011, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think your collusion point is dead on, will be interesting to see who makes the first move here

No it won't. We all know who's going to make the first move.

JoeRedskin · 04-27-2011, 11:36 PM

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.

SBXVII · 04-27-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

I've been saying from day one I want Jake Locker. I'll be disappointed if he isn't in burgundy and gold by the end of the weekend...

and I if he is taken. What a dilemma.

If you let me wash Locker I'll let you wash Ponder, then the team can drop back for more picks and take Dalton.

Lotus · 04-27-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

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.

SmootSmack · 04-27-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-27-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

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.

artmonkforhallofamein07 · 04-27-2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:

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.

SBXVII · 04-27-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

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.

mbedner3420 · 04-27-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and I if he is taken. What a dilemma.

If you let me wash Locker I'll let you wash Ponder, then the team can drop back for more picks and take Dalton.

Was that intended to sound as gay as it does? Lol

04-27-2011, 11:20 PM	#46
artmonkforhallofamein07 HST - "Hey Rube" Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Charleston , SC Posts: 3,906	re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated 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 __________________ Robert Griffin III welcome to the Washington Redskins! Year 1 - NFC EAST Champions at 10-6 Year 2 - Comeback player of the year??? 12-4??? Divisional round playoff game at home??? Superbowl??? 8-8 or worse??? We just have to wait impatiently to find out. http://site.fandangoracinginc.com/

04-27-2011, 11:35 PM	#51
artmonkforhallofamein07 HST - "Hey Rube" Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Charleston , SC Posts: 3,906	re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated 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. __________________ Robert Griffin III welcome to the Washington Redskins! Year 1 - NFC EAST Champions at 10-6 Year 2 - Comeback player of the year??? 12-4??? Divisional round playoff game at home??? Superbowl??? 8-8 or worse??? We just have to wait impatiently to find out. http://site.fandangoracinginc.com/

04-27-2011, 11:36 PM	#53
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 50 Posts: 7,145	re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated 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. __________________ My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

Redskins Locker Room