1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Judge Nelson rules for players, lockout to be lifted

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,981
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...yers-lockout-to-be-lifted?module=HP_headlines

    MINNEAPOLIS -- Judge Susan Nelson Monday granted the plaintiffs' request for an injunction to lift the NFL lockout.


    But perhaps the biggest development is that Nelson has decided not to stay the decision, which could force the league to open for business immediately. The NFL now must seek a stay with the Eighth Circuit, where the appeal would be heard, in order to prevent a potentially chaotic beginning to the 2011 league year.


    Nelson's decision in the Brady et al v. National Football League et al case comes on the heels of the mediation she appointed going into a nearly-month long recess, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan making the decision last Wednesday to adjourn the session until May 16.


    The league will likely appeal Nelson's decision swiftly, wanting to avoid the beginning of free agency and offseason programs with the potential that, if the Eighth Circuit rules in its favor, the lockout could be reinstituted in the coming weeks or months.
     
  2. ntman68

    ntman68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,051
    Ratings:
    +139
    Big thumbs down...
     
  3. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,981
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Why? You think the OWNERS are right in all this BS?
     
  4. ntman68

    ntman68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,051
    Ratings:
    +139
    I do indeed.
     
  5. RM24

    RM24 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,109
    Ratings:
    +264
    Not sure who's right but let's get this thing settled soon!
     
  6. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,105
    Ratings:
    +3,555
    I think long run owners are right, but seeing as how we're probably losing the Chargers soon I don't care about the long run.
     
  7. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,992
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    It's a win for all the chicken littles that didn't know what to do with their lives with not having free agency to thump their chest about. It's a negative for the game of professional football as a whole though.

    There is no right side or wrong side in this, but there has been a side that's at least shown a willingness to be flexible versus another that is wearing their intent to milk the cow dry on their sleeves. And the thing that fans need to get through their skulls is that neither side cares about the fans more than they care about themselves. Capitalism is a game of worrying about #1 first and everything else secondarily.

    I will say this. If Nelson did say, as I read in one report, that an NLRB ruling would have no jurisdiction in her court room she's truly a moron... either that or just self-righteous female dog.
     
  8. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    Overall, it doesn't mean squat. The owners will just appeal it, and we will have to wait a few months to get the results of the appeal, and during that time, a stay will be put into place to prevent free agency. Then if the next judge rules in the owners favor, the players will appeal again. It will not accomplish anything other than waste money, time, and create negative feeling against each side
     
  9. AnteaterCharger

    AnteaterCharger Calibrating Bolttalk, Podcast by Podcast Staff Member Super Moderator Podcaster

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,111
    Ratings:
    +2,930
    Stays can be decided pretty quickly - probably within a few weeks. Even then though there will likely be an appeal by the owners

    What I don't get still is why the judge ruled this way - owners have a right to shut down and keep strikers out of their property, have for decades. Why is this different?
     
  10. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    The difference is, no one is striking
     
  11. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,297
    Ratings:
    +4,406
    The players aren't strikers, they are being locked out by the owners..... big difference.

    The NFL also runs nothing like the other big businesses that people us for comparison. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption, and is more socialistic in nature than it is true free market capitalistic. For some odd reason, fans tend to side with the owners in this situation. They have the cushiest business arrangement know to mankind...... #imjustsaying
     
  12. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    I think people try to compare themselves to the players, but know they can't compare themselves to the owners. So just because the owners are making probably as much as half their team, a player making $3-4 mil a year is just too much for anyone to handle. That and the fact that the owners are able to keep their salaries private while the players salaries are just a google search away. If it came public that the owners make $20-30 mil (Just making up a number, could be more, could be less), I think people would be much less likely to take their side
     
  13. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,297
    Ratings:
    +4,406
    The NFL is a de-facto cartel...... they don't have to compete with anybody, like real free market businesses do.

    The owners are supposedly in "competition", but they share TV and merchandising revenue, and even prop-up small market teams. Cities build them stadiums and give them free land. Despite their claims of hardship, the owners are not doing poorly at all. As Richard Walden (head of sports finance at JPMorgan Chase) said, “I’ve never seen an N.F.L. team lose money.”
     
  14. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,981
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    The union decertified, so in essence, there is no union. Since there (technically) is no union, the owners cannot lock out the players.
     
  15. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,297
    Ratings:
    +4,406
    And the owners will claim that the decertification is a sham. So is setting up a P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands, and calling it your "corporate headquarters" to avoid paying taxes, but plenty of corporations get away with that. ;)
     
  16. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,992
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    I'm not debating that it's a cushy position, but the saying still holds true that you have to spend money to make money. And if anti-trust exemptions restrict free market capitalism from being instituted by management then it should not be a stance given to labor either.

    One thing that dawned on me the other day as to where operating expenses for ownership can well have escalated significantly (even if it is also bringing in additional revenue) from those in the previous CBA extension is two big words... NFL Network. The operation of a television station is not exactly cheap. Yes, additional revenue is coming in from now broadcasting Thursday night games for half the season, but that is revenue that is split among all - per mandate of the collective bargaining agreement.

    What I referred to earlier where - if the appeal does fail - this is a pretty crappy day for professional football as a whole is that it will effectively set the standard that if the players union (and mind you this sets a precedent that could actually affect all professional sports in the U.S.) doesn't get what they want in future bargaining discussions they can just decertify, sue the league, and get what they want meted out by the courts. And what does aggravate me most about this is that what was ultimately - whether the PA wants to admit it or not - the dividing issue on the whole discussions breaking down still hasn't been solved or brought further toward resolution.

    There was a reason why the players have yet to seek litigation over attempting to strong-arm the owners into having to open their books - because if it goes high enough in the court system a decision that might favor them in that respect would be overturned. No federal court will set that sort of dangerous precedent.

    Right now, the decision today will have some small causal effect (likely enabling player traded prior to or during the draft and a few free agent signings - though likely not very many, as I'd expect owners to be tenuous considering we don't know what free agents rules are in effect), but ultimately what was ruled today was expected and has been expected for a long time. It's WHY the players were so insistent on taking things to litigation, they knew that they effectively had the judges in David Doty's circuit court as close to in their pocket as was legally possible. The real trial/litigation begins at this next appellate circuit court - and both side have been prepping for it for some time.

    I still stand by what is my - and I think the sentiments of several posters on here - stance that while they posture and put on the facade of looking out for the interests of Joe "Insert Team" Fan, neither side is willing to compromise their own interests (i.e. maximizing personal profit) in the name of the NFL fan. Basically, this is a bitter custody battle where Mommy and Daddy are going at each other tooth and nail but the only reason either wants custody is for the additional monthly income that is child support payments from the other party. And we're the kids caught in the middle that just want Mom and Dad to reconcile or at least come to some sort of amicable middle-ground.
     
  17. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,297
    Ratings:
    +4,406
    The fans will bitch and moan, but until any actual games are lost, the fans haven't really suffered at all...... the pain is purely imagined, not real.

    The draft will still take place, and eventually, free agents will be signed. The percentage of fans who attend pre-season practices is rather small. At this point, absolutely nothing has been missed. The players and the owners have a right to fight for the best deal they can get...... so why are the fans so irate?
     
  18. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,297
    Ratings:
    +4,406
    Chargers players awaiting ruling on lockout
    BY KEVIN ACEE
    MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2011 AT 5:36 P.M.


    Chargers players and their agents were weighing the information Monday afternoon and deciding how to move forward now that a federal judge has lifted the NFL lockout.

    In reality, the granting of an injunction by judge Susan Nelson is just the beginning of a series of events, including a planned appeal by the NFL.

    Some agents were considering telling their players to show up for work, if only as a legal maneuver to show the players want to work. A number of Chargers players, many of whom have been working out together the past month, said they will do whatever their leadership tells them to do.

    Chargers center Nick Hardwick, the team's player rep, said he is awaiting more information. He is scheduled to participate in a conference call with the other team reps and leaders of what was the players' union before it decertified in March when talks with the league broke down.

    "When we're instructed we can be there, we're going to be there," Hardwick said. "Guys are excited to play."

    Monday night, players were sent an e-mail from the NFL Players Association telling them the injunction allows them to report to their teams.

    "Be advised any player going to work tomorrow is doing so under the ruling that Judge Nelson rendered today," the e-mail read. "Judge Nelson's court order prevents the clubs from locking out players under contract, so they can show up for work. Unless and until the judge issues an order for a stay (delay of the injunction), the teams will be in violation of Judge Nelson's order if they don't allow access."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    This commentary is the best breakdown of the situation I've read yet
    NFL owners absorbed a major loss when a judge in Minnesota granted an injunction to lift the lockout - ESPN

    Injunction: Beginning of lockout end

    It isn't over, but Monday's ruling in Minnesota is a huge setback for the owners



    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.

    Judge Susan Nelson's Report

    U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered an end to the NFL lockout Monday. Read the ruling here. Report (PDF)


    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.
    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.
     
  20. MasterOfPuppets

    MasterOfPuppets Charger fan since 1979

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,053
    Ratings:
    +636
    I sidewith the owners becuase 1) they are more concerned about the future of their league (what makes them money), the players only care about making the most money for themselves right now, not caring if they turn the NFL into MLB (huge disparity in spending). 2) the owners show some semblance of trying to negotiate while the players only wan to "win" negotiations.

    Although I try to distinguish between player leadersiph (smug a55 DeMaurice Smith),their lawyers, et. and the "regular" players, at some point there will be a deal and I'll be cheering for them
     
  21. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    Wow, I see it a complete 180 from that. The owners are the ones who opted out of the CBA when the players told them they were willing to renegotiate without the owners having to do so. The owners are the ones who imposed a lockout leaving the players no choice but to decertify or get completely butt raped. The players have not asked for anything additional, and just want things to stay where it is. So how you can say the owners have been willing to negotiate, I just don't see it at all
     
  22. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,672
    Ratings:
    +411
    I side with the Owners because of the Players' resistance to the 18 game schedule... (which based on the argumentation presented is stoopid to the max). The CFL went to 18 games (with 2 pre-season) ages ago.

    I know that this is a one issue opinion... (but in my estimation it is the one that effects me the most).
     
  23. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    I don't know what the attrition rate is in the CFL, but it's already high enough in the NFL (especially with the Chargers).
    Not sure why it'd be any different, other than NFL players are bigger and faster and the human body can only take so much punishment.

    If the NFL does go that direction, they'll have to up the roster size considerably.
    That said, I side with the players on that issue. 16 is enough. For that matter, the NHL would have a more marketable product if it shortened its season.

    Other issues and overall: I don't really care who wins. Looks to me like they'll be playing in September. How they divy up the billions doesn't really affect me that much, except to keep guaranteeing extensive coverage on Sunday.
     
  24. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    Overall, I don't care either. It isn't like ticket, merchandise, or concession prices are going down no matter which side wins.
     
  25. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,672
    Ratings:
    +411
    With all of the fairy rules changes... its quickly becoming a Pooftah sport anyway. No blocking below the waist on an interception return! Give me a freakin' break!


    CFL approves four rule changes for 2011 season
     
  26. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    How long til they break out the ringette sticks? ;)
     
  27. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    Yep, and more, they'll continue to go up, no matter which side wins.
    Though I suppose if the players win, a cynic might say the owners will punish the fans.
     
  28. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    I am all for preventing players from diving at each others knees. We have enough ACL injuries, we need to put a stop to that
     
  29. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,672
    Ratings:
    +411
    Judging by your avatar there is more than one opinion we don't share.
     
  30. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,672
    Ratings:
    +411
    Ever play the sponge puck FCB? You get a lot of crazy bounces. :D
     

Share This Page