If these are not fun times for football fans, they are captivating days for lawyers.
The NFL lockout is back in force after a short hiatus last week.
A St. Louis
appeals court could determine as early as Monday whether the league deserves a permanent stay of an injunction granted to the players in Minnesota to block the lockout.
"We are in uncharted but fascinating legal territory," agent and attorney Ralph Cindrich said as he examined the short-term reinstatement of the lockout by three judges from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "The owners' lockout is temporary now; it can become permanent after the same three judges do a detailed review. If the lockout is reinstated, it puts the players down on points big."
If it's not, something Cindrich predicts, league business could resume almost immediately, even as more NFL appeals are filed. Cindrich believes that even though those judges voted 2-1 Friday to review the matter, they won't overturn Judge Susan Richard Nelson's original determination that the lockout was preventing the players from earning a living.
With the draft behind them, the 32 teams can't have contact with any players. That includes veterans along with rookies just selected. It also means undrafted free agents, who usually sign contracts hours after the seventh round concludes or the next day.
"You just do what you do and abide by the guidelines the league puts out as we go along," Rams general manager Billy Devaney said. "Everybody's in the same boat; we're not stressing out or anything. It'll eventually get settled and you just go with it."
Going with it for the players means training on their own. For first-round picks, it means devouring the playbooks they were able to get from their teams during Friday's short break in the lockout.
"The quarterbacks and offensive linemen and wide receivers, these young guys, can you imagine? With no mini-camps and no OTAs, if they show up Aug. 1 to training camp, they're going to be so lost," Montana-based agent Ken Staninger said. "It may be a lost draft, other than the elite-elite."
For coaches, it means evaluating how they addressed their needs in the draft, and which undrafted players they might approach when allowed to do so.
Dallas coach Jason Garrett has all his plans organized for offseason workouts and minicamps.
"What we did is we laid out the entire calendar for the offseason assuming there was no lockout," Garrett said. "So all of those dates were in place soon after the season ended. But obviously we had to be responsive to the lockout and when the players came back, and we'll continue to do that based on what the new rules are."
Those rules are uncertain even if the players win the next round in the appeals court. Among the league's options is reinstating the 2010 guidelines, which featured more limited free agency and no salary cap. And no minimum for spending, which could come into play more than ever with some owners who fear profits will continue to decline.
"It's a chaotic time," said Ben Dogra, agent for Sam Bradford and Patrick Willis, among many other players. "There are a lot of moving points, and it means daily uncertainty."
Amid the uncertainty, one message rang clear at Radio City Music Hall during the draft. It was delivered by the fans, who repeatedly booed Commissioner Roger Goodell and also chanted "we want football."
Goodell responded, "So do I."
For now, getting football back is in the hands of the judges. (source CBS Sports)
lunes, 2 de mayo de 2011
Goodell at the Draft - Ingles
Roger Goodell, as he has done every draft, was in the mezzanine of Radio City, signing autographs and kissing babies. Literally, he was kissing a baby, when a fan, standing nearby, expressed his belief that Goodell shouldn't kiss the baby. Instead, the fan muttered, Goodell should kiss his ass.
Goodell kept signing, seeming like he didn't hear the Jets fan's blunt remark, the fan that smelled like he had been drinking since the lockout began. On and on the signing went. In the 30-minute span I watched, Goodell must have signed 50-75 autographs. My guess is he signed hundreds in all.
When Goodell first walked into the mezzanine he was greeted by some raw anger. The "We want football!" chants erupted immediately. Goodell smiled. "So do I," he said back to some. "Why are you killing our sport?" yelled one fan wearing a Giants jersey. "Roger, we want [expletive] football!"
Then something strange happened. Goodell signed and signed and took picture after picture. Fan anger subsided and the same people who were expressing their rage began to whip out pens, paper and hats for Goodell to sign. After only a few minutes, a situation that could have been truly nasty turned downright pleasant.
It was, in many ways, a remarkable scene. Is it Goodell spinning, is it Goodell reaching for good PR knowing the media is watching? Of course part of this is for public-relations purposes. The league never has missed an opportunity for that, but Goodell still deserves credit for going into the lion's den -- and I don't mean the Detroit Lions' den.
It took some guts for Goodell to make that trek with so many fans infuriated by the lockout. Infuriated, specifically, with him.
This was an interesting moment for what has been a tough draft week -- and nasty few months -- for Goodell. If there's one thing this lockout has exposed it's that the commissioner's office simultaneously possesses both great influence and great impotence.
Goodell is the spokesman for the owners. In this role, he has attempted to sway fan sentiment toward his side and, frankly, that mission has failed. His horrid editorial in the Wall Street Journal, meant to frighten fans to the owners' side, completely backfired.
Yet in moments like the one here at Radio City he has the ability to win fans over.
The reason I've always said Paul Tagliabue is a Hall of Famer is because Tagliabue was able to avoid many of these labor landmines. Tagliabue also saved the owners from themselves. The media hated Tagliabue because he didn't kiss their butts (or any babies) but he was one of the best commissioners in history at keeping the league -- not only the owners -- unified and peaceful.
Now, according to a number of team officials with knowledge of the situation, a smaller group of hawkish owners pushed Goodell to take a hard line with the players for the latest collective bargaining talks and that is why the league started off asking the players to give up billions.
These owners, in effect, want the players to solve the NFL's revenue-sharing problems by giving back more money.
Goodell is the front man and in a brutally tough position. He has to do what the owners want even if he disagrees and has to publicly defend a position with which he might not personally agree.
Back on the mezzanine, Goodell smiled and signed. The earlier hostility had disappeared. People were lined up 10 to 15 deep to get Goodell's autograph. They liked him.
For the moment. They liked him. (source CBS Sports Mike Freeman)
Goodell kept signing, seeming like he didn't hear the Jets fan's blunt remark, the fan that smelled like he had been drinking since the lockout began. On and on the signing went. In the 30-minute span I watched, Goodell must have signed 50-75 autographs. My guess is he signed hundreds in all.
When Goodell first walked into the mezzanine he was greeted by some raw anger. The "We want football!" chants erupted immediately. Goodell smiled. "So do I," he said back to some. "Why are you killing our sport?" yelled one fan wearing a Giants jersey. "Roger, we want [expletive] football!"
Then something strange happened. Goodell signed and signed and took picture after picture. Fan anger subsided and the same people who were expressing their rage began to whip out pens, paper and hats for Goodell to sign. After only a few minutes, a situation that could have been truly nasty turned downright pleasant.
It was, in many ways, a remarkable scene. Is it Goodell spinning, is it Goodell reaching for good PR knowing the media is watching? Of course part of this is for public-relations purposes. The league never has missed an opportunity for that, but Goodell still deserves credit for going into the lion's den -- and I don't mean the Detroit Lions' den.
It took some guts for Goodell to make that trek with so many fans infuriated by the lockout. Infuriated, specifically, with him.
This was an interesting moment for what has been a tough draft week -- and nasty few months -- for Goodell. If there's one thing this lockout has exposed it's that the commissioner's office simultaneously possesses both great influence and great impotence.
Goodell is the spokesman for the owners. In this role, he has attempted to sway fan sentiment toward his side and, frankly, that mission has failed. His horrid editorial in the Wall Street Journal, meant to frighten fans to the owners' side, completely backfired.
Yet in moments like the one here at Radio City he has the ability to win fans over.
The reason I've always said Paul Tagliabue is a Hall of Famer is because Tagliabue was able to avoid many of these labor landmines. Tagliabue also saved the owners from themselves. The media hated Tagliabue because he didn't kiss their butts (or any babies) but he was one of the best commissioners in history at keeping the league -- not only the owners -- unified and peaceful.
Now, according to a number of team officials with knowledge of the situation, a smaller group of hawkish owners pushed Goodell to take a hard line with the players for the latest collective bargaining talks and that is why the league started off asking the players to give up billions.
These owners, in effect, want the players to solve the NFL's revenue-sharing problems by giving back more money.
Goodell is the front man and in a brutally tough position. He has to do what the owners want even if he disagrees and has to publicly defend a position with which he might not personally agree.
Back on the mezzanine, Goodell smiled and signed. The earlier hostility had disappeared. People were lined up 10 to 15 deep to get Goodell's autograph. They liked him.
For the moment. They liked him. (source CBS Sports Mike Freeman)
Owners should treat players as partners, not enemies - Ingles
No matter what happens in the courtroom, NFL owners need to make a fundamental collective shift in their attitude. If they would treat the players like their partners instead of like underlings, or burdens, or prodigal sons, it would do a lot to dissolve the current tension and forestall future labor strife.
Clearly, the owners aren’t there yet. They continue to resist the idea that players are entitled to much say in business affairs. And they resent the size of player paychecks, especially to rookies who are potential busts.
Which led to a strangely half-joyful, half-cynical rite in Thursday’s first round of the NFL draft at Radio City Music Hall. Publicly, Commissioner Roger Goodell welcomed the expensive young stars of the future with hugs. Meanwhile, the owners were trying to kneecap them economically and on Friday won the right to lock them out again temporarily, in the hopes of convincing an appellate court to support the shutdown longer-term.
You had to respect Goodell’s aplomb and good nature in dealing with the social awkwardness, as well as the jeering displeasure of frustrated fans. Goodell clearly understood the power of the moment for young men who worked their whole lives to be chosen in the first round, and he translated it with exuberant, rib-cracking embraces, throwing out his arms to induct them into the brotherhood. It was obviously the nicest part of his job, and he did it with deep feeling.
How could he not? There was Von Miller of Texas A&M, possibly the game’s next great linebacker, so overwhelmed to be chosen No.2 overall by the Denver Broncos that he buried his face in a handful of tissues, his shoulders shaking. “I had an immediate flashback to Little League football, and to all the people who told me no, who told me I can’t,” he said.
There was Julio Jones of Alabama, a devastatingly talented wide receiver, wearing a demure bow tie and so thrilled to go No.6 to Atlanta that he stammered with excitement. “If I have to block the whole game, that’s what I’ll do,” he said, earnestly. There was Patrick Peterson, the defensive back from Louisiana State chosen at No.5 by the Arizona Cardinals, answering proudly when asked to describe himself: “I’m a young man in a profession.”
If only the goodwill of the draft could have carried over, and created some conciliation in the labor dispute.
But by lunchtime on Friday, the joy was gone, replaced by more wrangling, as both sides filed arguments to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals over whether the lockout should remain suspended or be restored.
The language was both disheartening and paralyzing: the NFL sought a temporary stay in order to obtain a longer stay, pending an appeal of an enjoinment of the lockout. What did all the legalese mean? Who cared. The better question was, why can’t both sides meet in the middle? The draft begged the question of why they are battling as adversaries through lawyers, instead of talking as allies in a tough but mutually enriching business?
Both sides are at fault for using legal threats like nuclear options. But ultimately, the main responsibility for the impasse rests with the owners. They’re the ones who declared the status quo unacceptable, demanded $1 billion in concessions from the players, refused to fully open their books to demonstrate why, and then locked their teams out.
This is not meant to paint all owners as villains simply for being rich. Each has different outlooks and concerns. Some are highly leveraged; some are in distressed markets; some are rolling in cash. Some are genuine entrepreneurs; some got lucky; some inherited their teams. You have to admire the impresario Jerry Jones, even if you disagree with his philosophy in building the $1 billion Cowboys Stadium, the largest sports bar in the world. You have to respect the acumen of Bob Kraft, the basic decency of the Tisch family, the self-effacement of Steve Bisciotti.
But if there has been a consistent group tone emanating from ownership, it’s the faint sound of contempt. The message from the owners to players whether intentional or not is, “You are our inferiors.” According to Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who closely watched the mediation in Washington in March, the owners made the players feel “ignored, belittled, or both,” and were oblivious to their mounting anger.
According to former player Sean Morey, who sat in on mediations, when the players demanded full financial disclosure, the owners replied that “even if we provided that information, you wouldn’t be able to understand it.”
In addition to the message that the players are stupid, the owners have sent the message that they are not entirely worthy of their money. Just the other day Goodell pointed out in a Wall Street Journal editorial that players’ salaries have doubled in the past decade. He failed to mention that the NFL’s income from 1993 to 2011 more than quadrupled, from $2 billion to more than $9 billion, and so did the value of franchises. Rookie Peterson got the message loud and clear. Asked on draft night if he understood the labor dispute, he replied that the owners didn’t want to “put money into guys who aren’t producing enough.”
The owners seem convinced that they are in the right, and that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will vindicate them legally. But regardless, their lock out strategy is high risk and of questionable wisdom. It seems driven less by genuine cost-control concerns than by a perception that the players are simply undeserving of such a large cut of the pie.
There is no question the owners invest huge sums and deserve some help with escalating costs. But the players make large investments too, with their bodies, and their long-term well-being. They will have briefer careers, more injuries and less job security than arguably any other professional athletes. As long as owners seem insensitive to these risks, and skeptical of the players’ value, there won’t be any enduring labor peace.
The hope here is that the draft created a little thaw. Maybe the owners saw that parade of professional young men and were struck by how intelligent they seemed, how piercingly grateful to be chosen, and how determined to be credits to their organizations. Like some owners, they are entirely self-made. If the owners are the promoters of the game, the players are the performers. The two would seem to be mutually reliant. They should negotiate like it. (source Sally Jenkins -- Washington Post)
Clearly, the owners aren’t there yet. They continue to resist the idea that players are entitled to much say in business affairs. And they resent the size of player paychecks, especially to rookies who are potential busts.
Which led to a strangely half-joyful, half-cynical rite in Thursday’s first round of the NFL draft at Radio City Music Hall. Publicly, Commissioner Roger Goodell welcomed the expensive young stars of the future with hugs. Meanwhile, the owners were trying to kneecap them economically and on Friday won the right to lock them out again temporarily, in the hopes of convincing an appellate court to support the shutdown longer-term.
You had to respect Goodell’s aplomb and good nature in dealing with the social awkwardness, as well as the jeering displeasure of frustrated fans. Goodell clearly understood the power of the moment for young men who worked their whole lives to be chosen in the first round, and he translated it with exuberant, rib-cracking embraces, throwing out his arms to induct them into the brotherhood. It was obviously the nicest part of his job, and he did it with deep feeling.
How could he not? There was Von Miller of Texas A&M, possibly the game’s next great linebacker, so overwhelmed to be chosen No.2 overall by the Denver Broncos that he buried his face in a handful of tissues, his shoulders shaking. “I had an immediate flashback to Little League football, and to all the people who told me no, who told me I can’t,” he said.
There was Julio Jones of Alabama, a devastatingly talented wide receiver, wearing a demure bow tie and so thrilled to go No.6 to Atlanta that he stammered with excitement. “If I have to block the whole game, that’s what I’ll do,” he said, earnestly. There was Patrick Peterson, the defensive back from Louisiana State chosen at No.5 by the Arizona Cardinals, answering proudly when asked to describe himself: “I’m a young man in a profession.”
If only the goodwill of the draft could have carried over, and created some conciliation in the labor dispute.
But by lunchtime on Friday, the joy was gone, replaced by more wrangling, as both sides filed arguments to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals over whether the lockout should remain suspended or be restored.
The language was both disheartening and paralyzing: the NFL sought a temporary stay in order to obtain a longer stay, pending an appeal of an enjoinment of the lockout. What did all the legalese mean? Who cared. The better question was, why can’t both sides meet in the middle? The draft begged the question of why they are battling as adversaries through lawyers, instead of talking as allies in a tough but mutually enriching business?
Both sides are at fault for using legal threats like nuclear options. But ultimately, the main responsibility for the impasse rests with the owners. They’re the ones who declared the status quo unacceptable, demanded $1 billion in concessions from the players, refused to fully open their books to demonstrate why, and then locked their teams out.
This is not meant to paint all owners as villains simply for being rich. Each has different outlooks and concerns. Some are highly leveraged; some are in distressed markets; some are rolling in cash. Some are genuine entrepreneurs; some got lucky; some inherited their teams. You have to admire the impresario Jerry Jones, even if you disagree with his philosophy in building the $1 billion Cowboys Stadium, the largest sports bar in the world. You have to respect the acumen of Bob Kraft, the basic decency of the Tisch family, the self-effacement of Steve Bisciotti.
But if there has been a consistent group tone emanating from ownership, it’s the faint sound of contempt. The message from the owners to players whether intentional or not is, “You are our inferiors.” According to Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who closely watched the mediation in Washington in March, the owners made the players feel “ignored, belittled, or both,” and were oblivious to their mounting anger.
According to former player Sean Morey, who sat in on mediations, when the players demanded full financial disclosure, the owners replied that “even if we provided that information, you wouldn’t be able to understand it.”
In addition to the message that the players are stupid, the owners have sent the message that they are not entirely worthy of their money. Just the other day Goodell pointed out in a Wall Street Journal editorial that players’ salaries have doubled in the past decade. He failed to mention that the NFL’s income from 1993 to 2011 more than quadrupled, from $2 billion to more than $9 billion, and so did the value of franchises. Rookie Peterson got the message loud and clear. Asked on draft night if he understood the labor dispute, he replied that the owners didn’t want to “put money into guys who aren’t producing enough.”
The owners seem convinced that they are in the right, and that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will vindicate them legally. But regardless, their lock out strategy is high risk and of questionable wisdom. It seems driven less by genuine cost-control concerns than by a perception that the players are simply undeserving of such a large cut of the pie.
There is no question the owners invest huge sums and deserve some help with escalating costs. But the players make large investments too, with their bodies, and their long-term well-being. They will have briefer careers, more injuries and less job security than arguably any other professional athletes. As long as owners seem insensitive to these risks, and skeptical of the players’ value, there won’t be any enduring labor peace.
The hope here is that the draft created a little thaw. Maybe the owners saw that parade of professional young men and were struck by how intelligent they seemed, how piercingly grateful to be chosen, and how determined to be credits to their organizations. Like some owners, they are entirely self-made. If the owners are the promoters of the game, the players are the performers. The two would seem to be mutually reliant. They should negotiate like it. (source Sally Jenkins -- Washington Post)
As lockout returns, so do frustrations - Ingles
The wildest week in NFL history had one more twist at the end and it means football is off limits again.
The NFL locked out its players Friday night after its first legal victory in the long, bruising fight with the players over the future of the $9 billion business.
The players who showed up smiling and relieved to be back at work Friday morning are now cooling their heels during perhaps the most chaotic offseason ever. The ups and downs of the day — and the weeks and months of this labor dispute — may be taking their toll with the first preseason game little more than three months away.
"It's crazy and it's really, really making it difficult to plan," Bengals quarterback Jordan Palmer said. "It's just really hectic. Everybody I've talked to is very thrown off by the situation."
Raiders quarterback Bruce Gradkowski vented on Twitter: "Gosh I just wanna get back to work and play! I feel bad for our fans having to put up with this."
The day began with dozens, if not hundreds, of players reporting to team facilities all over the league. They met with coaches, picked up playbooks and went through workouts for the first time since they were locked out after talks for a new collective bargaining agreement broke down March 11.
"From the players' standpoint I think everybody is pleased we're not locked out anymore, especially the rookies," Patriots quarterback Tom Brady said on CNBC in his first public comments about the dispute since he became a plaintiff in the still-pending federal antitrust lawsuit filed against the owners.
Not so fast, Tom.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson's order lifting the 45-day lockout on Monday was temporarily stayed by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The NFL made its decision a few hours later.
Teams "have been told that the prior lockout rules are reinstated effective immediately," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press.
Agent Peter Schaffer said he has advised his clients to abide by the court's ruling.
"You can't have convenient justice," Schaffer said. "Whatever the ruling of the day is, it must be followed. So I have told my players to stay away from the facilities."
The appeals court is expected to rule next week on the NFL's request for a more permanent stay that would last through its appeal of Nelson's injunction, a process expected to take 6-8 weeks.
"Nobody's happy about any of this," Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson said. "But it is what it is. The lockout is back into effect."
Teams had announced plans for organized practices and camps as early as next week, but those have again been put on hold.
"Chaotic," Vikings receiver Bernard Berrian wrote on Twitter. "I dunno where to go."
Coaches and general managers scrambled to bring their first-round picks in on Friday during what proved to be a brief window of time. They started to give the youngsters crash courses in what they wanted them to work on in the event that the lockout does drag on into the summer.
Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland said teams had no choice but to "go with the flow."
"It was good to see the players today, great to see some of those guys, and wish it would have lasted a little longer," Ireland said.
The NFL's victory came in a venue considered more favorable to businesses than the federal courts in Minnesota, tough it was a narrow one. The 2-1 decision from a panel of the 8th Circuit included a lengthy dissent from Judge Kermit Bye, who suggested temporary stays should be issued only in emergencies.
"The NFL has not persuaded me this is the type of emergency situation which justifies the grant of a temporary stay," Bye wrote.
Jim Quinn, the lead attorney for the players, downplayed Friday's order and was heartened by the dissent.
"Routine grant of stay and totally expected," he said. "The only surprise is that Judge Bye is so strongly against giving them even a tiny stay because the league obviously can't show it is necessary."
Agents were concerned with how undrafted rookies will find work with teams unable to sign free agents after the draft concludes on Saturday.
"The owners will create a huge injustice to their own GMs and personnel departments if they don't allow the signing of undrafted free agents," said agent Joe Linta, whose clients include Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco. "They may not care about the players, but they should at least help their own scouts, coaches and personnel people who have worked so hard in the scouting process."
The volatile atmosphere is rocking a league that thrives on routine and stability, and it doesn't figure to settle down soon.
"It seems like you hear something different almost hourly," Lions defensive end and player rep Kyle Vanden Bosch said. "This is a difficult situation for everybody involved."
Attorneys for the players had argued against a stay of Nelson's order, suggesting that the public and the players, with their short careers, are at far more risk when the business is stalled.
"Professional football is part of the fabric of American life," the attorneys wrote. "Because the uncontroverted record of evidence shows that the 2011 season could be canceled or significantly curtailed without an injunction in place, a stay may deprive the public of professional football altogether."
Said Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver: "It'd be great to have everybody back in the building, but the real thing is we've got to get back to the negotiating table and get a CBA." This article was written by Jon Krawczynski and appeared in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
The NFL locked out its players Friday night after its first legal victory in the long, bruising fight with the players over the future of the $9 billion business.
The players who showed up smiling and relieved to be back at work Friday morning are now cooling their heels during perhaps the most chaotic offseason ever. The ups and downs of the day — and the weeks and months of this labor dispute — may be taking their toll with the first preseason game little more than three months away.
"It's crazy and it's really, really making it difficult to plan," Bengals quarterback Jordan Palmer said. "It's just really hectic. Everybody I've talked to is very thrown off by the situation."
Raiders quarterback Bruce Gradkowski vented on Twitter: "Gosh I just wanna get back to work and play! I feel bad for our fans having to put up with this."
The day began with dozens, if not hundreds, of players reporting to team facilities all over the league. They met with coaches, picked up playbooks and went through workouts for the first time since they were locked out after talks for a new collective bargaining agreement broke down March 11.
"From the players' standpoint I think everybody is pleased we're not locked out anymore, especially the rookies," Patriots quarterback Tom Brady said on CNBC in his first public comments about the dispute since he became a plaintiff in the still-pending federal antitrust lawsuit filed against the owners.
Not so fast, Tom.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson's order lifting the 45-day lockout on Monday was temporarily stayed by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The NFL made its decision a few hours later.
Teams "have been told that the prior lockout rules are reinstated effective immediately," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press.
Agent Peter Schaffer said he has advised his clients to abide by the court's ruling.
"You can't have convenient justice," Schaffer said. "Whatever the ruling of the day is, it must be followed. So I have told my players to stay away from the facilities."
The appeals court is expected to rule next week on the NFL's request for a more permanent stay that would last through its appeal of Nelson's injunction, a process expected to take 6-8 weeks.
"Nobody's happy about any of this," Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson said. "But it is what it is. The lockout is back into effect."
Teams had announced plans for organized practices and camps as early as next week, but those have again been put on hold.
"Chaotic," Vikings receiver Bernard Berrian wrote on Twitter. "I dunno where to go."
Coaches and general managers scrambled to bring their first-round picks in on Friday during what proved to be a brief window of time. They started to give the youngsters crash courses in what they wanted them to work on in the event that the lockout does drag on into the summer.
Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland said teams had no choice but to "go with the flow."
"It was good to see the players today, great to see some of those guys, and wish it would have lasted a little longer," Ireland said.
The NFL's victory came in a venue considered more favorable to businesses than the federal courts in Minnesota, tough it was a narrow one. The 2-1 decision from a panel of the 8th Circuit included a lengthy dissent from Judge Kermit Bye, who suggested temporary stays should be issued only in emergencies.
"The NFL has not persuaded me this is the type of emergency situation which justifies the grant of a temporary stay," Bye wrote.
Jim Quinn, the lead attorney for the players, downplayed Friday's order and was heartened by the dissent.
"Routine grant of stay and totally expected," he said. "The only surprise is that Judge Bye is so strongly against giving them even a tiny stay because the league obviously can't show it is necessary."
Agents were concerned with how undrafted rookies will find work with teams unable to sign free agents after the draft concludes on Saturday.
"The owners will create a huge injustice to their own GMs and personnel departments if they don't allow the signing of undrafted free agents," said agent Joe Linta, whose clients include Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco. "They may not care about the players, but they should at least help their own scouts, coaches and personnel people who have worked so hard in the scouting process."
The volatile atmosphere is rocking a league that thrives on routine and stability, and it doesn't figure to settle down soon.
"It seems like you hear something different almost hourly," Lions defensive end and player rep Kyle Vanden Bosch said. "This is a difficult situation for everybody involved."
Attorneys for the players had argued against a stay of Nelson's order, suggesting that the public and the players, with their short careers, are at far more risk when the business is stalled.
"Professional football is part of the fabric of American life," the attorneys wrote. "Because the uncontroverted record of evidence shows that the 2011 season could be canceled or significantly curtailed without an injunction in place, a stay may deprive the public of professional football altogether."
Said Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver: "It'd be great to have everybody back in the building, but the real thing is we've got to get back to the negotiating table and get a CBA." This article was written by Jon Krawczynski and appeared in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
miércoles, 27 de abril de 2011
Beginning of lockout end - Ingles
In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:
How important is the ruling to end the lockout?
It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.
What happens next?
The owners have asked for a "stay of execution" on the injunction order. A stay is simply a delay in the time the injunction takes effect. A stay in this situation would keep the lockout in effect until the owners complete an appeal of the decision Nelson made Monday. The owners' attorneys will argue Nelson should issue a stay to allow them to preserve the status quo and to appeal her decision. A stay is frequently granted in similar situations. If Nelson does not grant the stay, the owners' attorneys will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay that would continue the lockout.
Will the owners succeed in obtaining a stay that would continue the lockout?
In similar situations, the owners typically would succeed in obtaining a stay and would be allowed to continue their lockout of the players. That might not happen in this case. A quick reading of Nelson's 89-page opinion shows that the judge is concerned about the "irreparable damage" the lockout would do to NFL players. She notes with approval the sworn statements from veteran NFLPA attorney Richard Berthelsen and numerous players that players' careers are short due to the "ever-present risk of career-ending injury" and that "the loss of an entire year in a short professional athletic career cannot be recaptured and cannot be compensated by damages."
The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.
Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?
Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.
What arguments did the owners make in support of their lockout?
The owners responded to the players' demand for an injunction ending the lockout with a highly technical argument based on the complicated jurisdictions of a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board. They claimed that the players' decertification of their union was a sham and that the whole thing was a labor dispute. Nelson did not buy any of it. In her opinion, she painstakingly goes through the owners' arguments and rejects them all. She was highly impressive in her reasoning and her language as she set aside each of the legal authorities that the owners offered. The owners treated the players' lawsuit as a labor issue instead of an antitrust issue. It is a strategy that has worked occasionally for the owners in earlier disputes but has failed more often than it has succeeded.
When the case reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, will the owners benefit from its conservative, pro-business reputation?
It is possible that the owners' arguments will find a more receptive audience in the higher court. But "conservative" and "pro-business" might not work in this case in the same way they work in other cases. The players are individuals who are seeking to bargain as individuals in a free market. They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.
If there is no lockout, what rules govern the relationship between the players and the owners? What, for example, is the definition of free agency now?
These are good questions, and there are no answers at this point. If the owners fail in their attempts to obtain a stay of the order Nelson entered Monday, the owners might try to impose new rules. Or they might try to negotiate a new deal with the players. Or they might try to do both. It's likely that they will try to do both.
What are the most important effects of the court decision?
There are two important effects. The first is that the players have leveled the field for future negotiations. If the injunction remains in effect (and I believe it will remain in effect), the players have new and important leverage in their talks with owners. Instead of facing a loss of income and the loss of a season, they face the prospect of working under a new set of rules and, ultimately, a better deal with the owners.
The second important effect it that Goodell and the NFL lawyers have some explaining to do. They must find a way to explain to dubious owners how the lockout could go so wrong. In addition to the loss on the lockout injunction, the owners face serious problems in the players' lawsuit attacking the league's broadcast contracts that require networks to pay for games that are not played. Despite the years of planning, the lockout has not gone well. (source Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com)
How important is the ruling to end the lockout?
It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.
What happens next?
The owners have asked for a "stay of execution" on the injunction order. A stay is simply a delay in the time the injunction takes effect. A stay in this situation would keep the lockout in effect until the owners complete an appeal of the decision Nelson made Monday. The owners' attorneys will argue Nelson should issue a stay to allow them to preserve the status quo and to appeal her decision. A stay is frequently granted in similar situations. If Nelson does not grant the stay, the owners' attorneys will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay that would continue the lockout.
Will the owners succeed in obtaining a stay that would continue the lockout?
In similar situations, the owners typically would succeed in obtaining a stay and would be allowed to continue their lockout of the players. That might not happen in this case. A quick reading of Nelson's 89-page opinion shows that the judge is concerned about the "irreparable damage" the lockout would do to NFL players. She notes with approval the sworn statements from veteran NFLPA attorney Richard Berthelsen and numerous players that players' careers are short due to the "ever-present risk of career-ending injury" and that "the loss of an entire year in a short professional athletic career cannot be recaptured and cannot be compensated by damages."
The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.
Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?
Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.
What arguments did the owners make in support of their lockout?
The owners responded to the players' demand for an injunction ending the lockout with a highly technical argument based on the complicated jurisdictions of a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board. They claimed that the players' decertification of their union was a sham and that the whole thing was a labor dispute. Nelson did not buy any of it. In her opinion, she painstakingly goes through the owners' arguments and rejects them all. She was highly impressive in her reasoning and her language as she set aside each of the legal authorities that the owners offered. The owners treated the players' lawsuit as a labor issue instead of an antitrust issue. It is a strategy that has worked occasionally for the owners in earlier disputes but has failed more often than it has succeeded.
When the case reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, will the owners benefit from its conservative, pro-business reputation?
It is possible that the owners' arguments will find a more receptive audience in the higher court. But "conservative" and "pro-business" might not work in this case in the same way they work in other cases. The players are individuals who are seeking to bargain as individuals in a free market. They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.
If there is no lockout, what rules govern the relationship between the players and the owners? What, for example, is the definition of free agency now?
These are good questions, and there are no answers at this point. If the owners fail in their attempts to obtain a stay of the order Nelson entered Monday, the owners might try to impose new rules. Or they might try to negotiate a new deal with the players. Or they might try to do both. It's likely that they will try to do both.
What are the most important effects of the court decision?
There are two important effects. The first is that the players have leveled the field for future negotiations. If the injunction remains in effect (and I believe it will remain in effect), the players have new and important leverage in their talks with owners. Instead of facing a loss of income and the loss of a season, they face the prospect of working under a new set of rules and, ultimately, a better deal with the owners.
The second important effect it that Goodell and the NFL lawyers have some explaining to do. They must find a way to explain to dubious owners how the lockout could go so wrong. In addition to the loss on the lockout injunction, the owners face serious problems in the players' lawsuit attacking the league's broadcast contracts that require networks to pay for games that are not played. Despite the years of planning, the lockout has not gone well. (source Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com)
Players can go in building, do little else - Ingles
One day after a federal judge ended a 45-day lockout, small groups of players showed up at team facilities Tuesday -- let inside but told they would not be allowed to work out on the same day the judge who lifted the lockout said she will take at least until Wednesday to consider whether she should put her order on hold.
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later. (source ESPN.com)
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later. (source ESPN.com)
NFL has no real plan to end lockout - Ingles
In the aftermath of Judge Susan Richard Nelson’s not-so-shocking decision to end the NFL lockout for at least the time being, I have this image in my head of the what the NFL lawyers, executives and owners looked like when they gathered to consider their next move.
Think “Animal House” and the scene after the Deltas go on double-secret probation. Think of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell channeling his inner-John Belushi and saying defiantly, “It’s not over until we say it’s over!”
Well, sort of.
For all of you who think free agency is magically going to start Tuesday morning, think again. The NFL has already filed an appeal questioning whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, seeking relief from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the NFL wrote in a statement that was released Monday. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”
That’s all well and good and the league is likely going to get its stay. However, here’s the problem with the approach by the league: it’s not going to work in the long run. The owners can hire all the big-time lawyers that they want and pay all the hourly fees necessary, but it’s not going to work. That’s because there’s a very simple issue on the side of the players.
It’s called the law. The law allows the NFL Players Association to decertify. The law allows any union in this country to decertify. This is not a sham, it’s a legal tactic complete with all sorts of risks for the players. The league wants the world to believe the players should be forced to negotiate on terms that favor the league, but that’s just not true.
Furthermore, the league will now have to convince a three-member panel of judges at the Eighth Circuit that what Nelson ruled is somehow wrong. Some people on the league’s side have attempted to reason that such an argument will be easier at the Eighth Circuit because nine of the 11 active judges (the case will randomly be assigned to three of them) were appointed by Republican presidents. Nice theory for those of you who think everything is about politics, but that’s not reality.
Want proof? The last time the league went to the Eighth Circuit was in 2009 to appeal Federal Judge David Doty’s decision allowing Michael Vick to keep approximately $20 million in bonus money that was paid to him by the Atlanta Falcons before he went to prison on dogfighting charges. Doty, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the CBA allowed Vick to keep the money, even though public sentiment was as against Vick as Dean Wormer was against the Deltas.
Doty’s decision was then upheld by the Eighth Circuit by three judges (Steven Colloton, William J. Riley and Roger Leland Wollman) who were appointed by George W. Bush (Colloton and Riley) or Reagan (Wollman).
In short, the league’s lawyers are going to have to convince three judges why they should overturn a pretty sound decision by another federal judge, even if she happens to have been appointed by President Obama. The league will also have to convince the three judges that they have less power to make decisions in this matter than the National Labor Relations Board. The league will have to convince the judges that the power of the owners to lock out the players supersedes the rights of those players to decertify and face the consequences. The league will have to convince the judges that collective bargaining didn’t break down even though the sides made little progress in the nearly three years since the owners opted out of the old collective bargaining agreement.
Good luck with all of that. There’s a better chance of owner Mike Brown leading the Cincinnati Bengals to a Super Bowl title than there is of the owners winning that series of arguments.
This is not about politics. This is about the law. (source Yahoo Sports)
Think “Animal House” and the scene after the Deltas go on double-secret probation. Think of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell channeling his inner-John Belushi and saying defiantly, “It’s not over until we say it’s over!”
Well, sort of.
For all of you who think free agency is magically going to start Tuesday morning, think again. The NFL has already filed an appeal questioning whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, seeking relief from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the NFL wrote in a statement that was released Monday. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”
That’s all well and good and the league is likely going to get its stay. However, here’s the problem with the approach by the league: it’s not going to work in the long run. The owners can hire all the big-time lawyers that they want and pay all the hourly fees necessary, but it’s not going to work. That’s because there’s a very simple issue on the side of the players.
It’s called the law. The law allows the NFL Players Association to decertify. The law allows any union in this country to decertify. This is not a sham, it’s a legal tactic complete with all sorts of risks for the players. The league wants the world to believe the players should be forced to negotiate on terms that favor the league, but that’s just not true.
Furthermore, the league will now have to convince a three-member panel of judges at the Eighth Circuit that what Nelson ruled is somehow wrong. Some people on the league’s side have attempted to reason that such an argument will be easier at the Eighth Circuit because nine of the 11 active judges (the case will randomly be assigned to three of them) were appointed by Republican presidents. Nice theory for those of you who think everything is about politics, but that’s not reality.
Want proof? The last time the league went to the Eighth Circuit was in 2009 to appeal Federal Judge David Doty’s decision allowing Michael Vick to keep approximately $20 million in bonus money that was paid to him by the Atlanta Falcons before he went to prison on dogfighting charges. Doty, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the CBA allowed Vick to keep the money, even though public sentiment was as against Vick as Dean Wormer was against the Deltas.
Doty’s decision was then upheld by the Eighth Circuit by three judges (Steven Colloton, William J. Riley and Roger Leland Wollman) who were appointed by George W. Bush (Colloton and Riley) or Reagan (Wollman).
In short, the league’s lawyers are going to have to convince three judges why they should overturn a pretty sound decision by another federal judge, even if she happens to have been appointed by President Obama. The league will also have to convince the three judges that they have less power to make decisions in this matter than the National Labor Relations Board. The league will have to convince the judges that the power of the owners to lock out the players supersedes the rights of those players to decertify and face the consequences. The league will have to convince the judges that collective bargaining didn’t break down even though the sides made little progress in the nearly three years since the owners opted out of the old collective bargaining agreement.
Good luck with all of that. There’s a better chance of owner Mike Brown leading the Cincinnati Bengals to a Super Bowl title than there is of the owners winning that series of arguments.
This is not about politics. This is about the law. (source Yahoo Sports)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)