Lockout Watch: 4/29: Stay of injunction granted, LOCKOUT REINSTATED

[jflow78]

You haven't been paying attention. There is no union to crush and the owners have appealed the injunction because they believe the union decertification is illegal. It is their position that there is still a union and that the two sides should be at the bargaining table. That is why they went to the NLRB to get a ruling on the NFLPA's decertification. The owners want the union, the CBA, the Draft, and all the other restrictions to free market trade that the CBA creates.

The owners are to blame here, folks. There is simply no fact that any of you can present that will show DeMaurice Smith is the cause of the lockout. You guys need to listen to the re-broadcast of Kevin Mawae's interview on the Sirius Blitz at 11 tonight. He lays it all out brilliantly.

Yes, DeMaurice is an angel and the owners are the devil and if it weren't for them we'd all be rich and have free healthcare, we should vote Smith for the next President, he will solve all problems. Demaurice didn't bargain fairly, THAT'S why the Owners went to court initially, because it was blatantly obvious that the LAWYER wanted to go to court. This has been their plan from the beginning.

Kevin Mawae, the President of the Player's Union (definitely NOT a fair and balanced opinion, so I won't be giving his interview any more weight than I would give one that RG gives), which is just a trade organization that's really still acting as a union but claiming they're not a union, even though they're planning on recertifying when the owners bow down to their will, and now that their lawyer buddy lost a big appeal, they're willing to finally sit down at the table and honestly negotiate.

DSmith is a douche. And to steal your own words, "There is simply no fact that [you] can present that will show DeMaurice Smith is [NOT] the cause of the lockout" and that the owners are at any more fault than the players over this.

[IronMike]

There are 3 main issues: 1) contracts, 2) antitrust, and 3) NLRB or Labor law. Owners probably win on the contracts issue: the contract with the union provided the opportunity for the owners to cancel it. They did. Players liked the old contract; owners did not; contract provision gave owners an out; they took the out. Players probably win on antitrust, but their argument is weakened because as a union they agreed to the anticompetitive aspects of the deal. Labor law issue is the toss-up. Everybody knows that decertification is just a ploy to avoid the obvious and allow the players to get into court. Democrats in power now appoint NLRB administrative deciders, but courts probably overturn NLRB decision. Players concluded that labor negotiations are a losing hand. Players chose the litigation option. That is their only chance to win, BUT it will result in the longest delay in getting to a final solution. Can the players hang together? Litigation is not the quickest way to resolve anything. You can win a battle but lose the war. Players chose the litigation route; Mawae can spin the truth and blame the owners for the delay, but the players chose this path. Appeals, hearings, rehearings, briefing scheudles,etc. take time. And folks, this is NOT the most important case on this court's (or any court's) docket.

[Devastate]

Some people will look at the situation as simple as "THE OWNERS CAN AFFORD IT!" and just side with the players without a brain cell so much as warming up.. The fact is the players have had just as much if not more of a hand in the delays and the lack of negotiations as the owners.

To me it's a case of give the players and inch and they'll want a mile.

I like the example in the case of the players wanting a piece of the television revs.. Most of us go to work everyday... Tomorrow, wake up go into work and start demanding pieces of the owner's other revenue streams.... Then threaten to take them to court over it.. Then see what happens. I know they are contracted, but still the point still stands.


Players agree to a contract with a team to play for a certain amount for a certain period of time... Seems to me they have forgotten this.

[Section106]

And to steal your own words, "There is simply no fact that [you] can present that will show DeMaurice Smith is [NOT] the cause of the lockout" and that the owners are at any more fault than the players over this.

The owners negotiated TV contracts at a lower price than market value to ensure payment in the case of a lockout. There is your fact. And Judge Doty is about to rule on the amount of damages ("treble" is the word your searching for here) the NFL will have to pay the players. So I've provided you with a fact and you've provided me with an opinion. Point to me.

Look, there is no union if it's members say there isn't a union. That's legal. You might not like it but so what? Your opinion has nothing to do with reality. I think that most fans that support the owners in this mess are missing a glaring fact, that the owners don't want football to be played this season. Why else would they opt out of the CBA and then negotiate the TV contracts the way they did? The owners want to break the resolve of the players to force them to take a bad, one-sided deal. That means no 2011 season.

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again?

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------

The fact is the players have had just as much if not more of a hand in the delays and the lack of negotiations as the owners.

That is not a fact. That's your opinion.

I like the example in the case of the players wanting a piece of the television revs.. Most of us go to work everyday... Tomorrow, wake up go into work and start demanding pieces of the owner's other revenue streams.... Then threaten to take them to court over it.. Then see what happens. I know they are contracted, but still the point still stands.

No it doesn't. The last CBA gave the players 60% of the TV contract money. That money pays their salaries. As stated in my earlier post, Judge Doty is about to rule to give the players triple damages because the owners did not live up to their legal obligation to negotiate in good fauith to maximize TV revenues for their partners, the players. I don't understand how this fact is lost on so many of you?

[skinsrbeast]

The lockout can easily be summed up as the owners are greedy douches and a lot of players are greedy douches and odds are we will have another one in ten years

[pimpumd]

The owners negotiated TV contracts at a lower price than market value to ensure payment in the case of a lockout. There is your fact. And Judge Doty is about to rule on the amount of damages ("treble" is the word your searching for here) the NFL will have to pay the players. So I've provided you with a fact and you've provided me with an opinion. Point to me.

Actually, no point for you...at least not yet. Even when find out what Judge Doty determines the damages to be in the television contract matter, you can most certainly expect that ruling to be appealed just as the antitrust litigation has been. That suit is far from over, just like the antitrust suit.

Look, there is no union if it's members say there isn't a union. That's legal. You might not like it but so what? Your opinion has nothing to do with reality. I think that most fans that support the owners in this mess are missing a glaring fact, that the owners don't want football to be played this season. Why else would they opt out of the CBA and then negotiate the TV contracts the way they did? The owners want to break the resolve of the players to force them to take a bad, one-sided deal. That means no 2011 season.

You saying there is no union because the players decertified does not make it fact, or legal. That is what the antitrust appeal is all about--and from the wording used in the 8th Circuit's ruling to extend the stay, it sounds like they're inclined to take the position that the players' decertification was, in fact, a sham. If that's the case, the NLRB has jurisdiction and the District Court (Judge Nelson) did not have the jurisdiction to enjoin the lockout. The way I look at it--if the Union decertified simply to get into Court on antitrust issues (which is otherwise precluded when the Union exists due to the collectively bargained agreement) and, after reaching a new agreement with the owners at some point in the future intends to re-certify, doesn't that seem like a sham decertification to you? The players want Union representation when it its beneficial to them, yet they disclaim the representation when its to their detriment. Hmmm....that seems like a sham to me. We'll see how that plays out.

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again?

This is the biggest load of bull****. You should be ashamed for repeating this utterly false "sound bite" from D. Smith's interview yesterday. The Owners did not sue anyone. The players decertified their own union specifically so that THEY could sue the owners in an antitrust case. The only thing the owners did was appeal Judge Nelson's opinion. Appealing a suit in which you are the named Defendant does not constitute "suing" in any way, shape or form. I am an attorney, but I feel confident in saying that anyone should be able to tell the difference between one party appealing a case, in which it was the named Defendant, and the other party making strategic maneuvers in order to file a lawsuit as the Plaintiff.

[windsofcreation]

This is the biggest load of bull****. You should be ashamed for repeating this utterly false "sound bite" from D. Smith's interview yesterday. The Owners did not sue anyone. The players decertified their own union specifically so that THEY could sue the owners in an antitrust case. The only thing the owners did was appeal Judge Nelson's opinion. Appealing a suit in which you are the named Defendant does not constitute "suing" in any way, shape or form. I am an attorney, but I feel confident in saying that anyone should be able to tell the difference between one party appealing a case, in which it was the named Defendant, and the other party making strategic maneuvers in order to file a lawsuit as the Plaintiff.

^This. DeMaurice Smith is just trying to pull the heart strings of the fans. Both sides are evil in their own right.

[pimpumd]

Edited to include content in post #351.

[MartinC]

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again

You just lost all credibility right here. The players are the party who sued and took this to Court and that is a fact. It might have been the players best shot at getting the best deal they could but it was a gamble because if they lose it gives all the leverage tonthe owners. Smith rolled the dice and it looks like he crapped out.

[Mark The Homer]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...34#post8305834

[AKM311]

Does the NFL or owners get a share of the players endoresement deals?

This is a real question I am wondering.

[Alvin_Walton40]

I actually don't. Because if everyone had to pick from less talented players, we would all still root for the Redskins. I honestly believe that the NFL is the one sport where it is less about the players than the team.

Respectfully disagree. The product becomes watered down. The chance of a better product elsewhere rises.

If what you propose were to come true, the NFL would die.

[AKM311]

Respectfully disagree. The product becomes watered down. The chance of a better product elsewhere rises.

If what you propose were to come true, the NFL would die.

I think the NFL can last 3 years without the top talent and by that time, new talent will have been developed from college.

All I know is if you took this entire Skins roster and put them on the Virginia Destroyers (I think thats the name), I am still watching a watered down skins roster for three years than the Virginia Destroyers.

But that is just me and we will just agree to disagree.

[Alvin_Walton40]

I think the NFL can last 3 years without the top talent and by that time, new talent will have been developed from college.

All I know is if you took this entire Skins roster and put them on the Virginia Destroyers (I think thats the name), I am still watching a watered down skins roster for three years than the Virginia Destroyers.

But that is just me and we will just agree to disagree.

3 years.......you are right we will agree to disagree. How many season tix are going to get sold? Merchandise sales? TV ratings? Stadium revenues? Hell even fantasy football would be on shaky ground. I am just not buying that the XFL with NFL colors works.

[jflow78]

The owners negotiated TV contracts at a lower price than market value to ensure payment in the case of a lockout. There is your fact. And Judge Doty is about to rule on the amount of damages ("treble" is the word your searching for here) the NFL will have to pay the players. So I've provided you with a fact and you've provided me with an opinion. Point to me.

Look, there is no union if it's members say there isn't a union. That's legal. You might not like it but so what? Your opinion has nothing to do with reality. I think that most fans that support the owners in this mess are missing a glaring fact, that the owners don't want football to be played this season. Why else would they opt out of the CBA and then negotiate the TV contracts the way they did? The owners want to break the resolve of the players to force them to take a bad, one-sided deal. That means no 2011 season.

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again?

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------



That is not a fact. That's your opinion.



No it doesn't. The last CBA gave the players 60% of the TV contract money. That money pays their salaries. As stated in my earlier post, Judge Doty is about to rule to give the players triple damages because the owners did not live up to their legal obligation to negotiate in good fauith to maximize TV revenues for their partners, the players. I don't understand how this fact is lost on so many of you?

So, you think the owners getting some insurance in case the players decided to decertify and take this to court (which makes EVERYTHING take longer) means that the owners didn't want football? Do you have insurance on your home? If so, when do you plan on setting it on fire because you don't want a house? Your logic is completely flawed. The owners made the contracts as a way to get leverage in a labor issue, the same way the players decertified (BTW which they were planning no doing for over a year and obviously when the owners found out about it, they tried to take out some, in case this takes too long, insurance).

Here's your fact, the players walked away from the bargaining table first, the players took this to court first, the players are the ones attacking football and the way professional sports are run, and the players are just as guilty as the owners for not getting a deal done. I've not once said that this is ALL the players fault, but you demonized the Owners so harshly that there's no credibility, or ground for your argument to stand on. You can't vilify one side and make the other seem like they're perfect.

As far as the union goes and who wants to play football, both sides ONLYL want to play football under the circumstances THEY decide, that's why they're in the situation they're in. If the players JUST wanted to play football, they could have accepted any of the deals the owners placed before them and they would be playing football right now. It's ignorant to think that the only thing stopping them is because the owners just one day said, "Hell, I want to take a year off, I suddenly hate football and I'm going to take it away from everyone just because I can". And having a union is the FASTEST way to get a new CBA because, until they recertify the union, they CAN'T get a CBA done. So, the players are the ones who have made it impossible to get a new CBA, since it requires a union for any kind of collective bargaining.

Don't kid yourself about decertification, you and I and everyone else knows the union is going to recertify, that's a fact, and if you don't believe that, then you can come and say your apologies when they do that exact thing in a month or two. If the player's carried out their lawsuit to the end, there would be NO professional football league. The NFL would be sued over and over by different parties, which is what we're seeing now, since they're only protected by that when there is a union, so the players are applying pressure to get the terms they want, that's all it is. If they never recertified the union, ANY player could sue for collusion and it could happen over and over until someone actually carried the lawsuit out, the players don't want that because it would ruin the salary minimum for the 80% of the players that only make the minimum, then you'd see players suing players and it would never end. They are going to recertify, they are only hurting themselves in the long run if they don't. Sure, in the short term it's good for getting the pressure they want, but if they don't, then sports leagues would collapse.

Also, there's only so many times you can decertify and recertify a union before everyone stops believing you, that's part of the player's problem, they've already done this before, not to mention, everyone knows that they aren't planning on carrying their lawsuit through, and their comments have pointed to as much.

Both sides are wrong in this and both sides need to grow up.