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

[Lotus]

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.