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

Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: May 17, 2011 11:45 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise.

No, for fans it is a great ruling, anyone that understands the situation, and wants football has to be happy that the law may prevail after all, and the player's bogus lawsuit should be dismissed, that the issues should be heard by the labor board as it always should have been.

As for the players, they brought this all on by greed and an incompetent Union boss.

Josh, Will, Mikey, and Andy, the four stooges for the players need to stop trying to speak for the fans. We want football, so we have to be on the side of law, and the owners in this one.

and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month


Or the players could drop the sham they tried, and return to the negotiation table as the Union they have always been, and remain today.

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.


Again, stop trying to speak for fans. We want football, the owners want football. DeMaurice Smith, and the players got the law, and backwoods law from Minnesota at that, involved. Do you really think fans are as stupid as you hope then to be? That the players need them to be?

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."


Translation: The NFLPA and the Players, and specifically DeMaurice Smith are still lying to the public. They could renounce their sham and return to the table any time.

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."


Exactly, the truth. The owners want football, the fans want football, the players want cash for current players only, and don't care about the fans, or the men that built th league they are lucky enough to be part of.

Amazing.  Every single thing you said is false.  The owners lock-out the players from the most successful CBA in history (owners made record profits); this isn't a player strike.  Where have you been?  Strike 1

Return to the negotiating table?  The players never left but the owners have never shown.  They send deputies with no power.  Strike 2.

You can speak for the fans but the other poster can't?  I bet you know where the WMDs are alos huh.  Strike 3.  1 out.

Obviously, the owners DON'T want football.  That is why the locked out the players.  Strike 1.

It isn't the players lying to the public, it is the owners.  I know of no players that attempted to sell non-existent seats to the Super Bowl.  It is the owners who act as if they are concerned with safety while trying to add games.  Big lie.  Strike 2.

More owner lying; they are contractually bound to negotiate in the players best interests, yet they criminally didn't with the TV contract, which proves they were planning the lock out over 2 years ago while holding communities hostage for bigger stadiums and while making record profits.  Strike 3.  2 outs.

Wow, you truly got every single issue wrong.  Simply amazing.



Since: Mar 20, 2007
Posted on: May 17, 2011 11:31 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

This is the exact reason the owners dont have to show them a thing. Now that theres no nflpa, the players disolved it, not the owners.

So, you start your own company, your employees dont have a union. Your business grows and becomes successful, now your employees want you to open your books so they can take a percentage of your business?? Good luck with that one. Where do i apply? REALLY.

Having to defend the owners is terrible enough, but they employ THOUSANDS of people, hot dog vendors, parking lot attendants, paving, cleaning, security, fencing, seating, ticket sales, advertising, a front office staff with executive assistants. This is just the football end, they also have real business they run away from football. The player works out 7 months of the year, WHEN HE WANTS, his choice. Shows up for camp in shape or out of shape. Plays the season, and only HALF of the league plays in the extra period. The lowest paid players still make 10x what the average american makes today. The owners were rich BEFORE the became owners !!!
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?



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: May 17, 2011 5:49 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

this is about as crazy a response as I could imagine.  The players decertified to take their issue to court.  they lose on the stay and now you hate the courts??

start another league?? this is typical of someone who does not own much or know what it truly takes to run a business.  Now that the league ( hence owners) are super successful ( they were not this way year's ago), everyone wants what they have.  What business would give 60% of their revenues to labor?

Look at the Mets and Dodogers ( two of the wealthiest areas) and the mess that ownership is in.  The Astros for sale.  which union has the strongest labor side??- you got it MLB.   Will Fla and Tampa survive, does Pittsburgh even compete after June?

The NFL works for all including the players.  Negotiate the differences (rookie pay scale, long tern benefits for players, free agency limits, schedule and safety) and move on

NFL owenrs have long term contraacts with stadiums and some OWN them.  Where are you going to play?   what TV revenue do you have?  Players dont have the time to wait this out and ONLY the stars win ( and they make most of the money already)

Goddell is NOT a puppet, but he does work for the Owners.  He's like their National Sales Manager and he keeps winning while BY THE WAY his players are making MORE MONEY EVERY YEAR.

You talk about the Saints as though they are united, that's crap- the players will go wherever the money is be in New Orleans or Kansas City

Brees, P. Manning, Brady have maybe 3-5 years left at the top.  they need to maximize their money now.  Lose ONE year and see what happens

NOPE the players listened to "their puppet"- Smith, they looked good for a while with a liberal judge, then this decision form a more conservative appelate group and now they are worried.




Since: Oct 5, 2006
Posted on: May 17, 2011 5:05 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

They're still at it, huh?  Thought I'd break my NFL news blackout and take a peek.  Sme old thing...  at least the owners are prevailing at the moment.  Good.  I hope they win.  Either skip the 2011 season or bring in some real players who want to play football.  No change here...  the three groups responsible and at fault here are the players, agents and union.  If they didn't want so much money, ticket and merchandise prices would be lower.  If they didn't demand free agency we'd have drafted players staying in the cities/with the teams that drafted them entire careers, until released or until traded.



Since: Apr 23, 2010
Posted on: May 17, 2011 4:58 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

If the players are smart they will not cave even if that means no football this season. Fuck the owners someone billionares should just start a brand new league




Since: Dec 7, 2009
Posted on: May 17, 2011 4:28 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Sure, this decision could hurt the (decertified) player's union.  As for hurting players, the lockout only prevents use of team facilities.  Aren't there plenty of alternative options available for players who want to work out or run drills?  Pay can't be an issue in the ruling on the lockout, either, since they're not paid for the team workouts, anyway.  I'm inclined to think the court made the right decision on this.



Since: Oct 24, 2009
Posted on: May 17, 2011 2:25 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Lol, Louie26, fyi, preseason games are all meaningless. Since when do you think preseason games count for anything?
OK genius, I know you can read.  


That's why I said get rid of the meaningless preseason games.  Never once did I say anything about preseason games being worth a s**t!!  


Do you really think that the Goodell and the owners really give 2 s**ts about the bench players by adding these 2 games?  If so, I have some land to sell ya! 


FYI----Here's what they care about-----$$$$$$$$$$$


If you are worried about injuries, hell, players can get injured no matter when they play so it doesn't matter.
I'm not worried about players getting hurt. It's a certainty!  Also, you say the starters won't play all 18 games? HMMMM...... what if a team is in a playoff chase and NEED those starters to play those games to ensure they make the playoffs?  Not all teams get that luxury of sitting starters the last week or 2, like the Colts.


I'm not sure I've heard 1 positive out of this addition of games BS!  OR, anyone that thinks it's a good idea, except the ones making money on it!!




Since: Sep 15, 2006
Posted on: May 17, 2011 2:22 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

If I were Drew Brees--which I'm not--but if I were...


I would call up the Manning brothers, Tom Brady, and a few other NFL elites and start interviewing businessmen who could start developing a new league that could be played this season. I wouldn't play "softball" with the owners--I would play hardball with the owners. This stinks of dirty, dirty...you know...like something from a justice system that slaps celebs on the wrists and lets killers named OJ run free until they committ armed robbery over a decade later.


I am appalled at this decision of the U.S. Court system... you know...? So be it. The owners don't want to disclose their $$, but make the public privy to the $$ going to the players who pull in the billions, including players' incentive bonuses? That seems fair. 


Yep. I'd holler at Mark Cuban and see what ideas he and some other sports-loving business people might have to say about getting something going this September. I know for a fact that the Saints, as well as other squads have gathered and started to workout. Not that a bunch of players want to play for no pay, but if they put alternatives in motion, I'm sure the owners will change their tune quickly.  


I have never like Roger Goodell, and now I like him even less...he's such a puppet, and in terms of league activity, his fines and nonsense are nothing more than his attempt to lay a stamp on the league. Well, Rog, it looks like your legacy could be as the commissioner who the players disliked the most. Congrats. Job well done.  



Since: Dec 18, 2006
Posted on: May 17, 2011 2:08 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Lol, Louie26, fyi, preseason games are all meaningless. Since when do you think preseason games count for anything? Instead of having 4-5 meaningless preseason games, they want 2 games to be meaningful out of the 4-5 games. With having them play 2 extra meaningful games, the bench players becomes more important in the team as I'm sure the starters is not going to play all 18 games. If you are worried about injuries, hell, players can get injured no matter when they play so it doesn't matter.



Since: Oct 24, 2009
Posted on: May 17, 2011 1:16 am
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

A bunch of players that CHOOSE to become NFL players that make MILLIONS of dollars over the career can't do as much as play two extra games during the season?   A joke.
A joke??  If you REALLY understood that the players take a beating, you'd know it isn't a joke!!



Adding 2 games to the schedule is the joke!



If this happens, remove some meaningless games in the preseason!


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