Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Posted on: May 16, 2011 6:25 pm
Edited on: May 17, 2011 4:56 am
 
Goodell, SmithPosted by Josh Katzowitz

The lockout is on, and it’s going to stay on until at least June 3.

That’s the word from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued this evening a permanent stay to District Court Judge Susan Nelson’s decision to end the lockout.

The owners and players will argue their case in front of the appeals court June 3, so this decision isn’t a surprise (it’d be a bit awkward, if the judges didn’t grant the permanent stay, which meant the lockout was lifted, only to overturn Nelson’s decision, meaning the lockout was back on).

Once again, Judge Kermit Bye dissented on the judgment, the same as he did when the appeals court granted the temporary stay April 29.

As the court wrote, it had to consider granting the stay on four factors: 1) has the stay applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether there will be irreparable harm without a stay; 3) whether other interested parties will be injured by the stay; and 4) where the public interest lies.

Ultimately, the appeals court believed that all those factors balanced together equaled a permanent stay.

Reading through the majority decision with my untrained eye, it doesn’t sound great for the players’ chances going forward.

When you read phrases like, “The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act” and “Our present view is that (the players’) interpretation of the Act is unlikely to prevail”  and (the biggest body blow of all) “we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout,” it can’t leave the NFLPA with a great feeling.

Bye dissented, writing the following in summary:

In sum, because I believe the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply in a situation where the Players are no longer represented by the union, I would conclude the NFL did not make the necessary strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, as it relates to the fourth factor, the NFL’s failure to make the necessary showing on the merits detracts from the NFL’s argument that the public interest favors the application of labor laws in the current context. At best, when considering the public interest in having a 2011 NFL season and, by extension, continuing with normal operations necessary for that objective, the public interest factor is a wash. Taken in conjunction with the balance of harms, which clearly favors the Players during the pendency of the expedited appeal, I would deny the NFL’s motion for a stay.


So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise. It’s a big victory for the owners – it’s their first really big win in the court system, and now, the leverage is pointed in their direction – and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month.

Which means that you can forget about OTAs and offseason workouts. Training camp still could be held, but right now, that’s in real danger as well.

But perhaps more important than any of that, the players I think are in real trouble going forward. And so are the fans who want more football and less legal analysis.

UPDATED (7:13 p.m. ET): The NFLPA has released a statement in response to the ruling.

"The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season."

UPDATED II (7:48 p.m. ET): The NFL has released its own statement.

"It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."

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

Category: NFL
Comments
hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 27, 2011 3:25 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: November 30, 2011 2:23 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Sep 28, 2006
Posted on: May 25, 2011 1:42 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA


Except in your example you can't draft workers, you can't own their likeness,  or prevent them from going to work anywhere else whenever they want - apples and oranges.  Why can't the owner sycophants see that?





You missed the point entirely. Those same employess you mention arent the ones that want the books opened so they can name thier percentage. And isnt Carson Palmer right now basicallly saying, "I'm not going to work for you, trade me or I retire". This is going to become more and more prevalent.

I'm also pretty sure I've seen Payton Manning in a few commercials that he DIDNT have an "Indy Colts" jersey on. Did the owners get a piece of those commercials? I think not.

Like i said originally, having to defend the owners is another absolute crime. Both sides are at fault here, the fans dont win, no matter how this plays out. Tickets, jerseys, stadium parking, hot dogs, heck your favorite team logo coffee cup are all going to go UP.





Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:44 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Skreffty interesting post. Lost me when you brought in WMD.  Sounds like you are in one of the players posse.  Don't be ignorant, the players union got a great deal the last time and now the owners are not going to cave in.  Yes the owners wanted money in case of a work stoppage but remember the union increased dues the last two years because they knew this was coming too. 

I hope you get the result you personally are looking for.

Me too.  A return to the last CBA, the most succesful and profitable (for both sides) in history is clearly the result any football fan should want.  I guess i am in the players camp.  As soon as the owners started ignoring every contract they have signed, being a fan of contracts, I had to be on th eplauers side.  Afterall, it is the owners that locked the players out.  As far as losing you with the WMD comment, it was reference to some rather recent events in our nation, but I understand some people only read the sports news.



Since: Oct 21, 2007
Posted on: May 23, 2011 8:33 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Skreffty interesting post. Lost me when you brought in WMD.  Sounds like you are in one of the players posse.  Don't be ignorant, the players union got a great deal the last time and now the owners are not going to cave in.  Yes the owners wanted money in case of a work stoppage but remember the union increased dues the last two years because they knew this was coming too. 

I hope you get the result you personally are looking for.  




Since: Oct 21, 2007
Posted on: May 23, 2011 8:21 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

The players are the game!!!HA    Football is the game!!!   People wake up.  The current players will all be gone in ten years, are you going to stop watching football?   If players are broke then its on them not the owners.  32zone, like a second year player should hold out cause Tom Brady said.  Tom doesn't have to work another day in his life but the guy protecting him does?  Think about it.  How can Tom represent the entire union.  Should of put Cromatie in the law suit, much more representing of the entire group of players.
  



Since: Mar 15, 2011
Posted on: May 17, 2011 11:53 pm
 

Holdout!

The players are the game!  They should hold out long term and force the rich owners to pay them all the money they are demanding.  I'm tired of these rich owners holding back all the cash when a lot of players are broke.  Manning & Brady need to tell the other players to stay out and keep the league from operating.  the owners will have to give in soon.



Since: Oct 24, 2009
Posted on: May 17, 2011 11:28 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Louie26, first of all, why get rid of the preseason games when its just practice, scrimage more or less. And instead of playing 4 preseaon meningless games, why not make 2 of those 4 count? As for starters not playing all 18 games, those games they don't play or play sparingly can be anytime. Why does it have to be the last 2 of the season, it can be the first 2
OK.  

All these players who play hurt with 16 games are now going to play hurt for 18.  Makes sense, I guess. Undecided


The reason that you sit the last 2 games---for example, the Colts, Steelers, Patriots, etc.......that typically have their division wrapped up and their seed in the playoffs isn't in jeopardy, normally will sit to rest.  Why on earth would you risk resting your starters the 1st two games of the season??

Most regular season games aren't in blowout fashion where you can afford to sit a starter like Brady, Manning, Brees, etc.......

 
why get rid of the preseason games when its just practice, scrimage more or less
So you need 4 preseason games to "practice, scrimmage, more or less??


Dude, I'm not here to argue, because obviously we disagree.  Which is fine.  I guess all I want is this damn lockout lifted and teams get on with business as usual.  








Since: Jul 21, 2008
Posted on: May 17, 2011 1:23 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

I heard on ESPN that Irsay (Colts owner) said he and Jeff Saturday could settle this on a cocktail napkin in a few hours.  Give them a chance.  Let's see what that proposal looks like.  Of course 80% of the owner's would probably not approve this course of action.  D Smith would not approve of this course of action because it might be successful and ruin Smith using this to make a name for himself.  It would also show that a former player should head the NFLPA and not a lawyer who wanted to go to court and lost at his own game.



Since: Dec 18, 2006
Posted on: May 17, 2011 12:49 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Louie26, first of all, why get rid of the preseason games when its just practice, scrimage more or less. And instead of playing 4 preseaon meningless games, why not make 2 of those 4 count? As for starters not playing all 18 games, those games they don't play or play sparingly can be anytime. Why does it have to be the last 2 of the season, it can be the first 2. There are some games that is less important than others. There are some games that the starters don't have to play the entire game. There are some games that is so meaningless that the starters can take a break. And lastly, this is professional sports teams, of course they care about money.


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