I think this is the right thing to do, no use in starting the league year if there's any chance of it shutting down again in a month. Now the question is, is this a sign of things to come?

I've read the opinion and am convinced the players have lost their case. The court relied heavily on the fact that it thinks the norris laguardia act strips the courts of jurisdiction. While they did not definitively decide it because they did not have to enter the stay, because this is a pure question of statutory interpretation, there is really nothing the players can do from this point on to convince the 2 judges who ruled that way (one dissented) that the law means something else. Facts or a more developed record won't change this. This same panel will hear the merits of the case too, so that's that.

The players' lawyers have to know this. My prediction is there will be a settlement very soon.

Yes, I agree. This is very good news in that we now have a real incintive for both sides to solidify an agreement quickly.

How the players respond to the next NFL proposal will be critical to the process. Hopefully, DeSmith will restrain himself.

yeah I though De Smith was in very poor form after the trial court ruling acting like the case was over and talking like he'd seek to find the league in contempt for not letting the players in to work out the next day. bush league

SMith was a little nasty at first in his response tonight,"He said congratulations, you are continuing to keep all the fans from football, way to go" then he lightened up, and said he was going to focus on mediation, which is what he wanted all along....

THe key is if the owners and Goodell, act proper at this point. They have to give Smith room to save face, I am just worried that the bad blood has boiled over, and the owners might want to rape SMith over the coals for some of his rhetoric. I hope not, or this will take longer.... Hopefully the 2side can take the emotion out of it. and put the past rhetoric behind them...

everyone, players and owners, need to stop talking about how it's all about the fans---godell with his stupid conference calls, the NFLP with every comment along the lines of "the court ruled the nfl can take football away from the fans," "the district court sided with the fans against the league."

we get it, the fans want football. but to think that either side is with the fans against the other is an insult to our intelligence. if everyone cared about "the fans" this would have been settled long ago. it's about both sides trying to squeeze the other and get the best deal each thinks is possible.

I doubt the supreme court touches this. it's not important beyond this dispute and the court rarely gets involved in that circumstance

Isn't this some sort of Sienfeldian "Bizzaro World"?

1. The players union WANTS to not be a union anymore. Weird
2. The owners WANT to make them remain a union. Weird
3. The Democratic leaning Judges are trying to help a union desolve. Weird
4. And the Republican leaning Judges are trying to help the owners make the players remain a union. Weird

All of this goes against all normal thinking.....Bizzare

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this some sort of Sienfeldian "Bizzaro
> World"?
>
> 1. The players union WANTS to not be a union
> anymore. Weird
> 2. The owners WANT to make them remain a union.
> Weird
> 3. The Democratic leaning Judges are trying to
> help a union desolve. Weird
> 4. And the Republican leaning Judges are trying to
> help the owners make the players remain a union.
> Weird
>
> All of this goes against all normal
> thinking.....Bizzare


Maybe thats why the Dolphins didn't draft a QB......it made too much sense.

Dolph- Actually from what I understand, the decertification didnt really play into it. The judges said the decertification doesnt prevent the use of the Norris Laguardia Act. Meaning the ruling say a labor dispute can arise without an employees being in a union...
Then the Judges were against Nelson, becasue she found irreparable harm being done to the players, but didnt acknowledge any harm to the owners. I can tell you the 8th didnt like that at all. Nelson shot herself in the foot, by finding all of the need reasons to grant an injunction on behalf of the players but not acknowledge any harm for owners.

Ghoti- Are you serious, You are the one who says The Players already won it, every chance you get, without anything whatsoever to back up your outlandish claims.... Now you come at me for saying , what....

You are the one who say the players already won and it is over...

That is not the case, the players have pretty much officialy lost the court case. Our Legal eagle, read the ruling, and said he is convinced the players lost the case, and their lawyers must know...

So in my opinion, the players are in trouble, they have decertified, and now they are going to lose the court case preventing a lockout due to the decertification.. Their entire tactics and plans have fallen short. What exactly do they do next?

I am not saying the owners won, becasue that is just a foolish statment. But at this point it looks like the players will not be getting paychecks, as they planned and promised the members of association.

Hopefully D SMith, doesnt do any more damage then he has already done, and hopefullly the owners show some compassion and wisdom, to get a deal done. But I am not promising anything, lots of bad blood and emotions invovled against Smith.

the players have to know they are toast in this lawsuit. they won't want to get an official ruling in a few months to confirm it, which would only set a bad precedent for them and waste months of time. I predict they come to a deal before the June hearing. If not then they are getting very bad advice or ignore good advice.

Chyren, berk-
Would this have to go in front of the full panel of the 8th before the supreme court? If that were even the case? Meaning could the players attorneys appeal to the supreme court, without a full panel from the 8th first? Is that proper protocol?
I am not sure the players would fair much better in the Supreme court either, so why step into the unknown.
The players want a deal now in negotiations and so do the owners, so I think something should get done, and all of this legal football will be behind us shortly. The only thing I am sure of in the outcome, is that no matter what, my buddy on the matter, Ghoti, will claim total and complete victory for the players

neither full court review nor Supreme Court review is something that the a party has a right to--they can ask for it but it is usually not granted (since this is just a ruling on a stay, not the merits, I don't think this is even something the full court or S Ct would care about at all so neither side would request it). full court review is pretty uncommon; S Ct review less common still. Either would add months and months to the process (if the S Ct took the case, they wouldn't even HEAR it till Oct at the earliest), and so this isn't something that is ever going to happen. You can appeal to the S Ct without seeking full court review; but again, since this is just a motion for a stay, it aint' gonna happen.

I'm confused, I know they voted to not lift the lockout on a temp basis and it's not looking good for the players on a permanent basis either, but with this ruling would they have to reform the union? I thought the whole deal was that you can't lock out a non unionized force (or maybe you can). I still don't see how any court can make them remain a union if its agreed upon by the members to decert. Very confusing.

it is confusing I agree. the jurisdiction question depends on whether this is a "labor dispute." the district court said it wasn't because the union disbanded. the appeals court said that is probably wrong, because the union disbanding was a "sham" or because you don't need to have a union to have a "labor dispute" within the meaning of the jurisdictional statute (8th Cir wasn't too clear on this point).

bottom line is nothing in this ruling means they are still a union, or that they have to be---it all has to do with whether there is jurisdiction to hear the case.

I read it slightly differently berk. The question of whether the players' union was still a union, to me, did not have to do with jurisdiction of either court to hear the matter on the merits but the ability of the lower court judge to issue the injunction which ended the lockout.

You see, what the lower court did was to enjoin the NFL from locking out the players.

The owners challenged that in the 8th circuit pointing to legislation (this is what has me rolling with laughter) stating that the courts can't issue an injunction in a work dispute.

The reason it is funny to me is that this legislation was originally designed, in the 1930's, to keep the owners from going to court and ending a strike by way of an injunction that would prohibit any workers from engaging in a strike.

Now, the tables are turned. The players wanted an injunction to prevent the lockout.

The owners said, "Wait a minute. You can't issue an injunction in a labor dispute."

The players said, "Hey. It's not a labor dispute because we decertified."


The stupid district court judge agreed.

The 8th circuit correctly said, in essence, "Come f'ing on. The drafters of this language in the staute were not stupid. It covers anything and everything having to do with a labor dispute that is on-going and the fact that the union decertified is no basis to exempt this. Because no one would doubt that this is still an on-going labor dispute."

we are saying the same thing. under norris lga, courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin "labor disputes." the district court held that it wasn't a labor dispute because there was no union, so it had jurisdiction to enter the injunction; the 8th Cir held that wasn't necessarily correct, there can be a "labor dispute" (and therefore no jurisdiction to enter an injunction) even if the union disbanded (or if its disbanding was a "sham"

I dont understand the argument you are making Chyren or Ghoti, that somehow a lockout benefits the players more then the owners. That IMO is total and absolute spin.
The owenrs wanted a lockout, that was there tactic, to lockout the players, so they will not get game checks, and they believe that will benefit them.
The players did not want to be lockedout, they filed legal preceedings and decertified, just about everything they could do, to keep from being locked out, so they could continue to recieve game checks.
But now, since the players seemed to be continuing to be locked out, somehow everything they have fought to avoid is somehow really what they want, and now favors them...Come on guys, you really cant be making this argument. If the lockout benefits the player so much more then the owners, then why would the owenrs lock them out and why didnt the players just strike... Please explain me this, casue you guys have completely lost me in what you are trying to say?
I do understand your position on the legal ruling Chyren, but I dont think you are giving enough credit to all that is said or infered around page 11 and 12.

I think it is great news that Roger Goodell, and D SMith had lunch together today! These 2 need to put their rhetoric and difference aside, Goodell has to offer Smith an Olive branch today, which I hope is happening as I post.
IF we hear nothing, or when Smith speaks he doesnt say anything bad about the NFL, we will know some progress is truly being made.
IF SMith wants to keep attacking Goodell, then this CBA is never going to get done.

I disagree with your longer post, ChB. While this is not on the "merits" of the injunction, of course, the basis for the 8th Cir ruling on the stay was that they don't think there was jurisdiction under the Norris Lga Act. They made it pretty clear that they felt this was the case ("serious doubts" about dist ct jurisdictional ruling, etc) with the only wiggle room the necessary language to the effect that this wasn't a final ruling on the merits.

This is a pure quesiton of statutory interpretation---the judges don't need anything more than they already have in front of them to reach this conclusion. So nothing is going to change in a month when this same panel confronts the same question. They will reverse the district court on jurisdictional grounds. (I can speak somewhat as an authority on this having clerked for 2 different federal circuit courts of appeal.)