Jump to content

Judge orders end NFL lockout,


visajets

Recommended Posts

Could it be over?  Keep your fingers crossed but there may be some good news on the horizon.   Earlier today Judge Susan Nelson Monday granted an injunction to lift the NFL lockout.   From NFL.com:

Nelson has decided not to stay the decision, which could force the league to open for business immediately.

The league swiftly appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and issued a statement announcing their intention to request a stay from Nelson. The hope is to avoid the beginning of free agency and offseason programs with the potential that, if the 8th Circuit rules in its favor, the lockout could be reinstated in the coming weeks or months.

“We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the statement said. “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree.

DeMaurice Smith, co-class counsel and Executive Director of the NFLPA said:

I’m happy for our players and for our fans. Today, those who love football are the winners.

Plaintiff Osi Umenyiora stated:

Today’s ruling is a win for the players and for the fans that want to see a full NFL season in 2011. The lockout is bad for everyone and players will continue to fight it. We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love.

There remain more questions than answers but if the lockout remains lifted, the 2010 rules would return while the two sides negotiated a new deal.  Anything that keeps the sides talking is good at this point in time.

There is a lot more information in our New York jets forum.

di</img>di</img>

nACZA93hKko

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thanks for the shoutout, NJ.

The law & the facts were clearly on the players' side in both the injunction situation (Judge Nelson) and the lockout insurance case (Judge Dotty). The NFL's arguments were inherently flawed.

Also, it's pretty clear that Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will deny a stay application. Judge Nelson essentially held that the NFL engaged in illegal employment practices. No judge is going to allow an employer to continue to act illegally while they appeal. Also, Judge Nelson found that the players will be irreparably harmed by a lockout and there is no harm to the NFL if the lockout is lifted. The Judge would be allowed the players to be irreparably harmed (which she decided was the case already) by allowing the stay.

There's also talk about the 8th Circuit is "conservative" and being "pro employer", but that's nonsense when it comes to the NFL. No matter how conservative or pro employer a court is they are not going to permit clear-cut illegal employment practices.

Remember, the NFL's ONLY defense to an illegal job action is that the decertification was a shame. In other words, "Yeah, we know the lockout is illegal but the players are only playing around in decertifying."

How the NFL put their trust in David Boise is beyond me. HELLO, he lost Al Gore the presidency! You're going to trust the fate of a multibillion business to his legal persuasiveness???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the shoutout, NJ.

The law & the facts were clearly on the players' side in both the injunction situation (Judge Nelson) and the lockout insurance case (Judge Dotty). The NFL's arguments were inherently flawed.

Also, it's pretty clear that Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will deny a stay application. Judge Nelson essentially held that the NFL engaged in illegal employment practices. No judge is going to allow an employer to continue to act illegally while they appeal. Also, Judge Nelson found that the players will be irreparably harmed by a lockout and there is no harm to the NFL if the lockout is lifted. The Judge would be allowed the players to be irreparably harmed (which she decided was the case already) by allowing the stay.

There's also talk about the 8th Circuit is "conservative" and being "pro employer", but that's nonsense when it comes to the NFL. No matter how conservative or pro employer a court is they are not going to permit clear-cut illegal employment practices.

Remember, the NFL's ONLY defense to an illegal job action is that the decertification was a shame. In other words, "Yeah, we know the lockout is illegal but the players are only playing around in decertifying."

How the NFL put their trust in David Boise is beyond me. HELLO, he lost Al Gore the presidency! You're going to trust the fate of a multibillion business to his legal persuasiveness???

That's what I found comical about this whole thing. Political ideologies are really thrown out the window with the NFL being exempt from anti-trust laws. This isn't a judge being anti-capitalism here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D’Brickashaw Ferguson wants his workout bonus, will show up today

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 26, 2011, 7:53 AM EDT

Jets offensive tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson has the largest workout bonus in the NFL, $750,000. In an attempt to earn that bonus, Ferguson is showing up to the Jets’ facilities today, one day after Judge Susan Nelson lifted the lockout.

Ferguson knows he’s not actually going to work out, but (as we’ve explained before) he wants to reserve the right to sue to collect his $750,000 if the Jets never pay him that bonus.

Ferguson’s agent, Brad Blank, told ESPN what he expects will happen.

“It only makes sense for a guy with a big workout bonus,” Blank said. “It’s not going to be a huge thing. He’ll go to the office, the security guard will say, ‘No, I can’t let you in’ and he’ll leave quietly. It’s not going to be James Meredith at Mississippi, with the national guard.”

So Ferguson will simply make a brief appearance at the team’s facilities, reserving the right to claim later that he was present and ready to work out when the lockout was lifted, and that he’s therefore owed $750,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D’Brickashaw Ferguson wants his workout bonus, will show up today

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 26, 2011, 7:53 AM EDT

Jets offensive tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson has the largest workout bonus in the NFL, $750,000. In an attempt to earn that bonus, Ferguson is showing up to the Jets’ facilities today, one day after Judge Susan Nelson lifted the lockout.

Ferguson knows he’s not actually going to work out, but (as we’ve explained before) he wants to reserve the right to sue to collect his $750,000 if the Jets never pay him that bonus.

Ferguson’s agent, Brad Blank, told ESPN what he expects will happen.

“It only makes sense for a guy with a big workout bonus,” Blank said. “It’s not going to be a huge thing. He’ll go to the office, the security guard will say, ‘No, I can’t let you in’ and he’ll leave quietly. It’s not going to be James Meredith at Mississippi, with the national guard.”

So Ferguson will simply make a brief appearance at the team’s facilities, reserving the right to claim later that he was present and ready to work out when the lockout was lifted, and that he’s therefore owed $750,000.

Nice job- show up for one day and earn $750,000. Do not cry for me Argentina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D’Brickashaw Ferguson wants his workout bonus, will show up today

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 26, 2011, 7:53 AM EDT

Jets offensive tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson has the largest workout bonus in the NFL, $750,000. In an attempt to earn that bonus, Ferguson is showing up to the Jets’ facilities today, one day after Judge Susan Nelson lifted the lockout.

Ferguson knows he’s not actually going to work out, but (as we’ve explained before) he wants to reserve the right to sue to collect his $750,000 if the Jets never pay him that bonus.

Ferguson’s agent, Brad Blank, told ESPN what he expects will happen.

“It only makes sense for a guy with a big workout bonus,” Blank said. “It’s not going to be a huge thing. He’ll go to the office, the security guard will say, ‘No, I can’t let you in’ and he’ll leave quietly. It’s not going to be James Meredith at Mississippi, with the national guard.”

So Ferguson will simply make a brief appearance at the team’s facilities, reserving the right to claim later that he was present and ready to work out when the lockout was lifted, and that he’s therefore owed $750,000.

The funny thing is this is going to work out for Brick as he planned. NFL released a statement today about that. From ESPN:

ESPN NFL - AP: NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says any player who shows up to team facilities will be allowed in.

Come on, you think there's a chance in hell the owners are going to pay the players a cent of a workout bonus without them doing the work? Plus I think the owners have already conceded they're ****ed and this lockout is officially over for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the shoutout, NJ.

The law & the facts were clearly on the players' side in both the injunction situation (Judge Nelson) and the lockout insurance case (Judge Dotty). The NFL's arguments were inherently flawed.

Also, it's pretty clear that Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will deny a stay application. Judge Nelson essentially held that the NFL engaged in illegal employment practices. No judge is going to allow an employer to continue to act illegally while they appeal. Also, Judge Nelson found that the players will be irreparably harmed by a lockout and there is no harm to the NFL if the lockout is lifted. The Judge would be allowed the players to be irreparably harmed (which she decided was the case already) by allowing the stay.

There's also talk about the 8th Circuit is "conservative" and being "pro employer", but that's nonsense when it comes to the NFL. No matter how conservative or pro employer a court is they are not going to permit clear-cut illegal employment practices.

Remember, the NFL's ONLY defense to an illegal job action is that the decertification was a shame. In other words, "Yeah, we know the lockout is illegal but the players are only playing around in decertifying."

How the NFL put their trust in David Boise is beyond me. HELLO, he lost Al Gore the presidency! You're going to trust the fate of a multibillion business to his legal persuasiveness???

The owners will lose and wind up paying a fortune to do so. I read legal fees are to be somewhere in the millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, you think there's a chance in hell the owners are going to pay the players a cent of a workout bonus without them doing the work? Plus I think the owners have already conceded they're ****ed and this lockout is officially over for good.

I surly hope you are right, but I suspect there will be much more drama before this is over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Brick getting into the facility to get his bonus:

per Rotoworld:

Jets LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson was turned down at the Jets' facility Tuesday morning when he tried to report to the team.

Ferguson is scheduled for a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, so he had all the incentive in the world to show up for "work." Unfortunately, the Jets denied Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery access. Cotchery wanted to use the cold tub to help rehab his surgically repaired back. Ferguson and Cotchery could conceivably sue the Jets and/or the NFL for turning them down.

http://twitter.com/#!/RichCimini/statuses/62869033359380480

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Brick getting into the facility to get his bonus:

per Rotoworld:

Jets LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson was turned down at the Jets' facility Tuesday morning when he tried to report to the team.

Ferguson is scheduled for a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, so he had all the incentive in the world to show up for "work." Unfortunately, the Jets denied Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery access. Cotchery wanted to use the cold tub to help rehab his surgically repaired back. Ferguson and Cotchery could conceivably sue the Jets and/or the NFL for turning them down.

http://twitter.com/#!/RichCimini/statuses/62869033359380480

And so much for any player who shows up to the facility being admitted access. Looks like at least the Jets didn't get that memo. That's kind of bullsh*t, if these guys want to show up and put work in, why the hell not let them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so much for any player who shows up to the facility being admitted access. Looks like at least the Jets didn't get that memo. That's kind of bullsh*t, if these guys want to show up and put work in, why the hell not let them.

Agreed. I think the owners should just accept defeat and let the players into the facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so much for any player who shows up to the facility being admitted access. Looks like at least the Jets didn't get that memo. That's kind of bullsh*t, if these guys want to show up and put work in, why the hell not let them.

My assumption is that this is happening at all NFL facilities then, and the Jets are not acting on their own.

The owners will not go down without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ockout-ruling/

Ten things to know, right now, about the lockout ruling

Posted by Mike Florio on April 26, 2011, 12:33 AM EDT

1. What does it mean?

In short, it means that the players’ strategy has worked, so far. When the union decertified, the objective was to place the players in position to block a lockout. Now, football can continue — with the players getting paid — while the two sides potentially move toward working out an agreement, at some point.

Of course, if the NFL prevails on appeal, the lockout will continue until the players agree to terms. With the lockout lifted, the players will be able to dig in, since their ability to work and be paid won’t be riding on their willingness to strike a deal.

2. What happens next?

The league wants to “stay” (i.e., delay) the lifting of the lockout pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The argument will be that opening the doors temporarily and then closing them after winning the case on appeal will create an undue hardship for the league.

If the league gets a stay, the lockout will remain in effect until the appeal is resolved.

If the league doesn’t get a stay, the lockout ends — and the new “league year” starts, with free agency and trades and players being cut and offseason workouts and, basically, business as usual. Unless and until the league wins on appeal.

3. What will happen on appeal?

The league is confident that it will win the appeal. The confidence comes in part from the fact that 13 of the 16 judges (active and senior status) assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit were nominated by Republican presidents. Though judges sometimes stray from their pre-bench political ideologies once they land lifetime appointments, the league surely likes its chances of getting a conservative, pro-business panel.

Initially, three judges (from the active and senior status) randomly will be assigned to the case. Persuading two of them will deliver a win.

The losing party then can file a petition for the case to be heard again before all of the active judges, and any senior status judges that served on the original three-judge panel. Those requests aren’t granted routinely, but this isn’t a routine case.

While the loose red state/blue state, pro-business/pro-labor composition of the 8th Circuit superficially favors the NFL, the standard that applies on appeal favors the players. The appeals court won’t be reviewing Judge Nelson’s work from scratch. Instead, the decision will be upheld unless the appeals court determines that Judge Nelson abused her discretion.

The 89-page written ruling seems was expertly crafted to avoid a finding that Judge Nelson acted unreasonably. Even if at least two of the three judges assigned to the case are inclined to conclude that the decertification of the union was a sham or that the courts must defer to the NLRB or that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents a court from enjoining a lockout, Judge Nelson’s reliance on past cases from the 8th Circuit supporting the idea that a so-called “preliminary injunction” can be obtained even if the likelihood of winning the case is lower than 50 percent, the question of whether the appellate judges believe the decertification of the union is valid doesn’t matter. All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

As we explained earlier in the month, it’s similar to the deference that a referee must give to the call on the field during replay review. Instead of substituting the referee’s judgment for the judgment of the official who made the call, the referee must look for evidence demonstrating that the call was clearly wrong. While Judge Nelson’s decision doesn’t have quite as much leeway, it’s simply not enough for the appeals court to disagree with her interpretation of the law. To overturn the decision to lift the lockout while the litigation proceeds, the appeals court must believe that the decision amounts to an abuse of the discretion inherent to trial courts.

4. When will free agency start?

That depends on several factors. If the NFL fails to finagle a stay, free agency could begin by the end of the week.

With a stay, free agency won’t happen unless and until the appeals court upholds Judge Nelson’s ruling.

Even if the league can’t delay the lifting of the lockout pending appeal, veteran players scheduled for free agency shouldn’t want the process to be rushed. Truly big money won’t be spent unless teams have had a chance to digest the rules for 2011, to set their budgets, to assess their needs, and to develops specific plans for the players who will be targeted.

As to rookie free agents who aren’t drafted, the players should push for the immediate signing of contracts, so that teams will be able to engage in their annual post-draft land rush for 15-20 undrafted rookies.

5. Can players be traded?

In theory, yes. But the league will ignore that issue until it learns whether a stay will be granted. If the ruling isn’t stayed, however, the league will have to allow trades.

And the union will push for that to happen immediately, since it will promote the movement of players during the draft, given that draft picks and players would be available as trade compensation.

6. Will the 2010 rules be used in 2011?

It’s unclear at this point. Many have assumed that the NFL will simply repeat the 2010 rules, which entailed no salary cap, no salary floor, and six years to unrestricted free agency.

With the players poised to challenge any rules implemented by the teams as a violation of the antitrust laws, the NFL needs to select the rules for 2011 carefully. If the league goes too far, the league will lose the antitrust lawsuit. If the league crafts rules narrowly aimed at ensuring competitive balance, the league could win the antitrust lawsuit — and the players would be stuck with a system that entails none of the protections that a union provides.

7. Will there be a rookie wage scale?

It depends. The league can impose one, and then the players would challenge it as an antitrust violation.

8. Will the parties continue to negotiate?

Yes. Mediation is scheduled to resume on May 16. The fact that the players won their motion to lift the lockout doesn’t end the case. The antitrust lawsuit continues, and a settlement of the case would become the next labor deal between the NFL and the players.

Though players like Domonique Foxworth have said that the players never intend to re-form the union, the problem with that approach is that any settlement between the current players and the league wouldn’t be binding on the annual influx of new players, who could challenge any of the rules to which the current players agree as violations of the antitrust laws.

Thus, the only way to reach a long-term labor accord will be to negotiate a new CBA, or to see the litigation to completion, with the league learning via trial and error (and the expenditure of millions in legal fees) what can and can’t be done from an antitrust standpoint.

9. How long could this take to resolve?

Years. But once the ruling lifting the lockout is finalized via the appeals process, football would continue until the antitrust case ends, as it did in the 1990s after the union decertified.

10. What happens to the “lockout insurance” case?

It still moves forward, even if there is no lockout (and thus no reason to use “lockout insurance”). Judge David Doty found last month that the league violated the CBA but failing to maximize the television revenue. At a minimum, the players are entitled to any money that the league “left on the table” when negotiating ongoing payments during a lockout instead of getting more money during the years of the deal not affected by a work stoppage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think the owners should just accept defeat and let the players into the facility.

oh they're letting them IN the facilities but conveniently all the trainers were given the day off today-league-wide. One word: collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the one thing this whole mess has shown us is who is on our side and whose side WE'RE all on-and it ain't the owners.

How so?

Do you actually want players that you draft and develop on your team to be contracted only for 4 years? Do you think it is fair that the top draft picks make more than established star veterans?

Both sides have some issues that I would agree with, and disagree with.

Neither side is a slam dunk right side to be on, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners will not go down without a fight.

That's what General Custer said.

The NFL owners have been getting bitchslapped in court for YEARS. Even the conservative US Supreme Court tea bagged them 9-0 last year in the American Needles case.

The NFL owners need a new legal team, legal strategy, and new commissioner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what General Custer said.

The NFL owners have been getting bitchslapped in court for YEARS. Even the conservative US Supreme Court tea bagged them 9-0 last year in the American Needles case.

The NFL owners need a new legal team, legal strategy, and new commissioner.

It would be idiotic to give up now.

And this isn't even the whole fight.

There still needs to be a CBA that is agreed to-That is the whole not in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what General Custer said.

The NFL owners have been getting bitchslapped in court for YEARS. Even the conservative US Supreme Court tea bagged them 9-0 last year in the American Needles case.

The NFL owners need a new legal team, legal strategy, and new commissioner.

The other day I was watching this thing on the Battle Of Gettysburg and it was Col George Custer leading 400 Michigan Calvary troops against 4000 of Jeb Stuart's crack calvary and held them off and forced them to retreat. They were trying to flank the Union lines at Culp Hill. Pretty impressive. Can you imagine charging a force ten times your strength and winning? Back to the lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually want players that you draft and develop on your team to be contracted only for 4 years? Do you think it is fair that the top draft picks make more than established star veterans?

Haha!

The owners only want a rookie cap, because it's those higher rookie wages that fuel the higher wages for veterans. They cap Sam Bradford's deal, then Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have a more difficult time asking what they're asking for. That's all that that's about.

Unless you're still under the impression that trickle down economics actually benefits someone other than the gazillionaire who's asked -but not compelled- to do the trickling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha!

The owners only want a rookie cap, because it's those higher rookie wages that fuel the higher wages for veterans. They cap Sam Bradford's deal, then Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have a more difficult time asking what they're asking for. That's all that that's about.

Unless you're still under the impression that trickle down economics actually benefits someone other than the gazillionaire who's asked -but not compelled- to do the trickling.

Do YOU think it is appropriate to have a top 10 pick come into the league without playing a down, earning more than the majority of veterans in the league?

Every player's salary is negotiated individually. Draft picks are not that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha!

The owners only want a rookie cap, because it's those higher rookie wages that fuel the higher wages for veterans. They cap Sam Bradford's deal, then Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have a more difficult time asking what they're asking for. That's all that that's about.

Unless you're still under the impression that trickle down economics actually benefits someone other than the gazillionaire who's asked -but not compelled- to do the trickling.

friggin' Commie bastid LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do YOU think it is appropriate to have a top 10 pick come into the league without playing a down, earning more than the majority of veterans in the league?

Every player's salary is negotiated individually. Draft picks are not that way.

I'm in favor of some kind of rookie cap, but I'd combine it with shorter rookie deals so those players who outperform their contracts have the opportunity to cash in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be idiotic to give up now.

And this isn't even the whole fight.

There still needs to be a CBA that is agreed to-That is the whole not in this case.

The preliminary injunction was the whole fight. The owners lose on appeal (which they will) on the injunction issue then they're toast. There is no way the owners are going to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to litigate an anti-trust case for years.

Brady v. NFL was all about negotiating leverage and the players have it. The same thing that happened with White v. NFL will happen now. The players bitchslap the owners in the early legal battles and either the parties agree to a new CBA or the court will impose one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...