Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

[CRedskinsRule]

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

Thank you. Now I'm up to speed with everything going on. I don't get how making the lockout permanent eliminates the players leverage. Its not like if they show up to the stadium things will go back to normal or is the term Lockout not that?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thank you. Now I'm up to speed with everything going on. I don't get how making the lockout permanent eliminates the players leverage. Its not like if they show up to the stadium things will go back to normal or is the term Lockout not that?

The players anti-trust suit lawsuit is a giant stick hanging over the owners head, but it takes a long time for lawsuits to work their way through the legal system (as we see with these expedited cases). If the owners are given the ok to lockout the players for the year it is much harder for the players to stay together if they are missing game checks so the threat of a finding in the anti-trust suit diminishes greatly.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

This kinda came out last week. It was mentioned that both sides needed to come to an agreement because if they didn't both sides would not be happy with the outcome.

It was thought that the 8th Circuit would basically allow the Lockout to continue, however if both sides didn't get something done by Sept. 11 (start of season) then the owners would pay the players triple the amount for each game. If the whole season is lost then it would cost close to 3 Billion.

Does it mean any one side has leverage? yes and no. The owners would get leverage for now but I can actually see the players deciding to not agree to anything in order to make the owners pay a price for winning now.

Basically the 8th Circuit was saying that they would listen to arguements but didn't feel they had the right to intervene and lift the lockout (which they must still be standing behind).

U.S. Court Court of Appeals - Welcome

Click on "Oral Arguements" and you'll get to hear both sides. Both sides get 25 min. each.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

Found it and it's not 3 Billion, it's more like 10 Billion.

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like | ProFootballTalk

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like

Posted by Mike Florio on June 5, 2011, 1:34 PM EDT
One of the best things about doing radio spots is that the discussion often gives me the kind of clarity that merely sitting at the keyboard doesn’t. That’s exactly what happened earlier today, when I chatted with Howard Balzer of 101 ESPN in St. Louis.
With Judge Kermit Bye strongly suggesting that neither side will like the ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit renders and with NFL lawyer Paul Clement being peppered with questions about the possibility that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the discussion with Balzer has helped me finally figure out how precisely how the Eighth Circuit could issue a decision that no one likes.
First, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents courts from issuing injunctions aimed at ending any lockout or strike arising from a “labor dispute,” with that term being given a broad interpretation that would apply even after the decertification of a union, legitimate or sham. This would allow the current lockout to proceed, indefinitely.
Second, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the CBA, given the specific term in the expired labor deal requiring the players to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit. Given the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this wouldn’t end the lockout as of September 11, the day on which the first slate of Sunday games are due to be played. However, it would expose the NFL to treble damages beginning with Week One of the regular season, if the lockout ultimately is determined to be an antitrust violation as of September 11.
Thus, the owners would be able to lock the players out for all of the 2011 season, but the owners would ultimately be responsible for the full player payroll in 2011, times three. That’s an amount that easily would exceed $10 billion.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Found it and it's not 3 Billion, it's more like 10 Billion.

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like | ProFootballTalk

the 3 billion I was talking about is the maximum in the TV Deal that Judge Doty has yet to award the players. As for damages in locking the players out, if the 8th District rules that they have the right to lock out the players, then that gives the owners leverage because no damages from a lockout would even begin to be calculated until long after some negotiated settlement is reached. Thus, the owners would not really fear damages from a future lawsuit, as much as the players would suffer from the immediacy of the no pay while locked out. Most likely damages would also be addressed as part of any settlement/agreement.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

the 3 billion I was talking about is the maximum in the TV Deal that Judge Doty has yet to award the players. As for damages in locking the players out, if the 8th District rules that they have the right to lock out the players, then that gives the owners leverage because no damages from a lockout would even begin to be calculated until long after some negotiated settlement is reached. Thus, the owners would not really fear damages from a future lawsuit, as much as the players would suffer from the immediacy of the no pay while locked out. Most likely damages would also be addressed as part of any settlement/agreement.

The way it sounds, although no one really knows how the 8th Circuit will decide, even listening to the "Oral Arguements" it seemed the 8th Circuit was leaning toward not lifting the "lockout" because they might not have any legal discretion to do so. So yes the "winners" if you will would be the owners. However, if the lockout extended into the regular season the 8th Circuit would or might award the players 3x the regular salary for each game and for a year that amounts to 10 Billion.

I understand what you were saying now though with the 3 Billion. Both sides have to figure out the T.V. money issue. But Judge Doty might not have to get involved if both sides include the distribution of the monies in the CBA. Which I'm betting the owners had figured would be done. If it's included and both sides agree to the split of that money then the players can drop any lawsuits they want. Doty may not even get involved.