Blog Entry

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

Posted on: May 4, 2011 10:31 pm
Edited on: May 4, 2011 10:53 pm
Posted by Will Brinson

Many an NFL scribe spent much of Wednesday waiting to find out if the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis would rule -- one way or the other -- on the NFL's request for a permanent stay of Judge Susan Richard Nelson's lockout injunction.

Currently, a temporary stay is keeping the lockout in place. However, Clerk of Court Michael Gans said on Wednesday that the court might not rule at all.
NFL Labor

"I don't have any indication whether there is going to be any further ruling on the motion for a stay," clerk of the court Michael Gans said Wednesday, per Gary Mihoces of USA Today.

Gans referred to the matter as "still pending" and said the court "court may rule and the court may not [rule]" with regard to the permanent stay.

A "non-ruling" would be pretty shocking, and, frankly, even though Gans said that, I can't imagine that the Court will simply choose to leave the temporary stay in place until June, July, or whenever the 8th Circuit finally rules on the June 3rd hearing that's currently scheduled.

Waiting until after the ruling would have the players' side pretty riled up, I'd think. If the court plans on ruling to remove the stay, it seems kind of like that might be something they'd be interested in. And if the court plans on ruling in favor of a permanent stay ... why not rule?

That being said, the court can do what it wants in this case, and if it thinks that a ruling either way could result in utter chaos that's detrimental to the legal business at hand, then it's not necessarily required.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 11:21 pm

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

Now i enjoy rebounding once more yet again jointly with your blog page web page. Simply put i came upon it all lake employed to happen to be detecting on askjeeve. Your individual elements needs aided my website exceptionally. It is always used to be specifically what We're also looking to buy.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 3, 2012 11:16 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 7, 2011 12:44 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 5, 2011 1:04 am

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

I figured it was eventually gonna be quite a few dreary past present, but it definitely dangerously rewarded needed for time. I will editorial one of the links for this web in my small internet site. I'm now reassured my brand new targeted traffic will find which unfortunately instead of noteworthy

Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: December 1, 2011 9:20 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Aug 6, 2008
Posted on: May 7, 2011 2:39 am

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

Big_Dogs, much of what you list is 'sunk costs', i.e. the past.  Players are losing their opportunity to play, but players made choices in that direction.  Owners spent money to obtain stadiums and teams, not all that debt is retired.  Owners certainly are holding players to the fire, and certainly burning themselves as well.

Future income is what is under consideration, it's the only thing that can be: the future (in the case of a lockout).  Players have college educations (hopefully), are young and capable of other employment (maybe baseball for some, which sounds about equally gainful).  Owners have stadiums, which require daily reoccurring costs to maintain, even at minimum levels, and rarely are suited for anything else (little resale value) but weekend football.  The two parties are losing about equally in the short run [since they have a profit splitting agreement, or had one], or the appeals court would have done something immediately.  Waiting a month means wanting the two sides to resolve the issue.  It's the first of several delays.

Many others claim that thousands are losing money, sure, but they are not parties to the lawsuit and not represented, so tough.  Big time pissing contests run over little dudes all the time.  If readers don't like that, think over their fandom.

Will Brinson was close with " the court can do what it wants in this case, and if it thinks that a ruling either way could result in utter chaos"  but history shows in these cases the court will find reasons to delay a ruling until one party realizes that settlement is the best choice, and the other party sees that too.  The sooner the players get to that point, the more likely they will continue to have high paying jobs.  Colleges have plenty of replacement players at hand.  Courts have plenty of reasons for delaying a decision.

So the fans try to vote with their feet and refuse to attend games?  The owners know how long the waiting lists are for seats, know what prices they can charge for seats, and can expect enough ticket sales with replacement players to work out in a couple of years.  Owners have TV contracts that pay no matter who is playing.  Thousands of third parties making money from the existance of weekly football will be convincing fans that the replacement players are the greatest ever (or finding new jobs).

Are players holding the short stick?  Probably, they live in a labor rich market, due to the popularity of college football.  There is an immense media machine designed to convince fans that whatever player is in a position for a game is the 'best ever' was just on display during the draft.  Taking the 'dissolve the union course' has many, many pitfalls.....soon a new players union will be in the rumors.

Since: Dec 29, 2009
Posted on: May 5, 2011 9:14 am

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

OBP you do not understand irreparable harm. The players are looking at irreparable harm the longer the lock out continues. Players have a limited amount of time to earn money in their respective careers. Most of the rank and file play three or four years near the league minimum, as opposed to the high profile players we like to follow and talk about incessantly. Every time they miss a paycheck it diminishes their ability to make the kind of money that is available to them as an NFL player. The vast majority of players will never make the amount of money they make now ever again in their lives. Additionally, their jobs as players is what gives them the ability to make money through endorsements, speaking engagements or get hired as a coach, scout, analysts, etc. at some level of football later on after they retired from being an active player.

The owners, however, have a long term business investment that they have made a calculated decision is benefited by the lock-out and their desire to force lower player salaries, particularly as it relates to rookies and the proposed rookie wage scale. We see ownership extending decades and in some cases, such as the Steelers, through generations. I personally think the stability of ownership is a good thing in general (except in the case of Mike Brown and the Bengals), but in the context of irreparable harm it works against the owners and paints a stark contrast to the players' interests. If you truly think about it, the owners very strategy illustrates the fact that the players are irreparably harmed by an extended lock-out. Analysts after analysts correctly points out that the owners just want to extend the lock-out until the players are due to start receiving checks because they know that is when their negotiating leverage skyrockets. The owners deep pockets can easily outlast the players and they believe can absorb any short-term backlash from fans. Their thinking seems to be that an extended lock-out will cause enough harm to the players economically that they will eventually capitulate to the owners demands, thus producing the irreparable harm the judge found the players would suffer.

Since: Mar 15, 2011
Posted on: May 5, 2011 7:52 am

Triple Damages

This case will be a slam dunk win for the players.  The owners need to open their bank vault and pay all the money the union is demanding, including more salary and benefits or they'll pay big in court.

Since: Feb 17, 2010
Posted on: May 5, 2011 6:15 am

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

What'd he call it? Rectocranialitits?! obp's statement is just Verbal diarrhea from someone who obviously knows what it means to have inflammation of his butt-brain. No irreparable harm! Thousands of lives are on hold, and many opportunities are already lost because the owners want to exploit exemptions and advantages that exist so THEIR businesses could flourish when they were starting. It's not just the players the owners are holding hostage, it's an entire industry. I suppose you think Brady, Brees and Manning are doing this for the money.

Since: Aug 6, 2008
Posted on: May 5, 2011 2:29 am

8th Circuit Court could not rule on lockout stay

The players "trade association" better get over it's rectocranialitis soon, they've lost.  The court will not rule swiftly, it's clear from the switching back and forth that there isn't a single party suffering irreparable harm, they both suffer about equally without a season (i.e. there is about a 50-50 split of the income).  The court wants the disagreeing partys to resolve this on their own.  The owners can handle a lockout much much better than the players, they have deeper pockets (which are not getting refilled tho).  The players are probably overextended, spending money like water....which makes them the loser.  Colleges got plenty of replacements waiting.....


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or