One more question Berk or Chyren,
Now does any other case relating to the NFL, whether it be Judge DOty, insurance case or all of the antitrust cases are all subject to appeal and oversight by the 8th circuit. Meaning anything these Judges rule will have oversight and final say by the 8th? And if so, do the panels rotate or change, or will it always be the same panel hearing this NFL related stuff?

Crowder, what I am saying is, like the Rolling Stones song, "Time is on my side."

I never said that the lockout benefits the players. In fact, it benefits the owners because it puts pressure on the lower paid players.

However, in the final analysis, it is a tactic that is designed to bring about rapid capitualation or surrender on the part of the players.

What I am saying, and I believe Ghotirule would agree although I can't vouch for how he would feel, is that if that rapid surrender on the part of the players does NOT occur, the NFL ownership is going to have quite a time explaining why they tossed out a whole season just to run a bluff that did not succeed.

If the players say, "Okay, let's go all the way." I doubt the owners will burn the season.

I'm trying to understand why you think that the owners will be willing to burn the season just because the players refuse to 'GIVE BACK' even more concessions than they did last year.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.)


RESPONSE: Okay, maybe I'm unclear. Is there anything about the suit OTHER THAN THE INJUNCTION.

If the whole case is about the injunction, then the players have already lost.

If there is more about the case such as the terms of the agreement (doubtful because it expired) or some other aspect, then there is something to be decided rather than whether any Court can enjoin the lockout.

If the latter is the only issue, then the players have lost unless the USSC intervenes, but I don't think they would in this instance because the liberals on the court would not want to set a dangerous precedence for the future and indeed a dangerous precedence would be set if a "lockout" could be defined as not having to do with a labor dispute (which is just plain silly in any event).

Moreover, the conservatives on the Supreme Court would not want to disturb a ruling by the 8th circuit which essentially says, "You can't have it both ways. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander."

as I understand it, there are 2 things in the case---a complaint for antitrust damages, and an injunction. So far the injuction has been the focus, but if they lose the injunction the whole case doesn't go away; there is still the case for damages. All the rulings so far have been focused on the harm/jurisdiction issues, no one has really addressed the merits of whether the lockout violates the antitrust laws.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One more question Berk or Chyren,
> Now does any other case relating to the NFL,
> whether it be Judge DOty, insurance case or all of
> the antitrust cases are all subject to appeal and
> oversight by the 8th circuit. Meaning anything
> these Judges rule will have oversight and final
> say by the 8th? And if so, do the panels rotate or
> change, or will it always be the same panel
> hearing this NFL related stuff?


no. the 8th cir is involved only in this case. the reason Doty was invloved for so many years is that the parties' last agreement stated that he would have continuning jurisdiction to resolve disputes under that agreement. that is a very rare provision and I will bet you anything the NFL will never agree to anything like that again! as for panels, they rotate---in the past when Doty's rulings have gone up to the 8th Cir, different panels heard them.

CHyren- I dont think either side wants to throw away the season, I just believe obviously, if the tactic was to put pressure on the players, by locking them out. The owners are prepared for the long haul, other wise why would they even use the tactic. These guys are large business owners, they know the consequences and stamini it takes to play a game like this. I do not believe the owners are bluffing. There are several hundred million dollars at stake in team values and increased cash flow, at a time where cashflow is the only king in town. In this economy, everything is being valued as cash flow and potential growth. The owners have huge liabilities to note holders and the IRS. Why do you think the owners just lowered the neccassary ownership from 25 to 20, so long time families have room to sell off parts of the teams for estate tax issues and still be considered the majority owners. Between debt and taxes, these guys need more money then they are making to continue to own teams and value them as they are. IMO, every team needs to be cash flowing at least 40 to 65 million a year depending on the market, to make sense on the value they are appraised at and have been sold at as recently as a few years ago. I bet there are maybe 5 teams that make that much money.... and twenty of the teams that make less then 20 and are in a downward trend. Lets not forget about the pressure and cost associated with new stadiums or stdium upgrades. So eventually that will catch up or has caught up with the game... Money is pretty cheap right now, if the cost of money goes up a couple points, it is devastating to these guys...
NFL team ownership was considered a good safe place for extreme wealthy to place and diversify wealth, but with the cash flow problems, it underminds the value and the flexibility for these owenrs to get in and out of the investments in time to deal with estate planning,etc. That is what the owners are concerned about IMO. SO I believe they are all willing to do what it takes to fix the problem. If they dont fix the problem it cost them greatly, much greater then a year or so without football.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 10:28AM by Crowder52.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> no. the 8th cir is involved only in this case. the
> reason Doty was invloved for so many years is that
> the parties' last agreement stated that he would
> have continuning jurisdiction to resolve disputes
> under that agreement. that is a very rare
> provision and I will bet you anything the NFL will
> never agree to anything like that again! as for
> panels, they rotate---in the past when Doty's
> rulings have gone up to the 8th Cir, different
> panels heard them.

I read that the 8th circuit will handle the appeal and oversight, in the upcoming Judge Doty TV Insurance case? Is that not the case, and what determines what they have oversight on and do not?

where'd you hear that? Panel assigments are usually random, though if 2 appeals are closely related they can be heard by the same panel. So by that logic it's possible the same panel would hear the Doty lockout inurance case, although the issues seem totally different.

I didnt hear that it was the same panel, just that the 8th provides the appeal and or oversight of the case. I dont understand the whole panel process and how it is determined and why and when.

which circuit hears an appeal depends on which state the suit was filed in. the 8th cir hears appeals from a bunch of states, including Minn, so because all of these cases were filed in Minn federal court, the 8th Cir heards the appeals (with usually random panel assigments). If the case was brought in say, FLA, the 11th Cir would hear it, because the 11th Cir hears appeals from Fla, Ga, and Ala.

Why did the Chamber of Commerce file an amicus brief with the 8th on supporting the leauge. What does that mean?

Berk, thanxs for the explanation on the appelate jurisdiction. And I am assuming the panels are picked randomly?

yes, randomly

I find that a bit odd that sides can present propaganda in the midle of different rulings, I am sure both sides could run around getting these all day from noteworthy groups on both sides of the fence(bogging down the process and the parties to take into account). It sounds like from a layman, these type of things could be distracting and somewhat self serving? How do the judges take them into consideration?

they usually ignore them, unless the parties' lawyers are not too-bright (definitely not the case here)

Well, Crowder I read your opinion and I respect it. But the bottom line is that you are saying that no revenue is better than reduced revenue.

In light of the fact that the players are willing to make some give back but the owners are dissatisfied because it is not enough, then that puts the owners position in even more the light of them wanting to change the status quo from last year to more benefit them.

You might be right but I'll bet that the owners will crack. I have taken hours of hiatus from this board between my posts on this thread but I see that there is another thread which says that the owners made a new offer to the players.

That hardly seems like the owners are playing from a position of strength and at the least seems to cast a shadow on your opinion that the owners are perfectly ready to throw away the season rather than backing down on their demands that the players give up more "take-backs" than the players offered to.

Oh, BTW, Crowder, you asked why would the owners even walk down this road in the first place unless they were prepared to fight it down to the last man.

The answer is easy. Remember, the contract was expiring. In order to have a new contract, you have to have both sides agreeing.

As such, locking out the players gives the owners leverage. As was recognized in the wording in the 8th Circuit opinion, the Owners felt that if the players could come in and train, get prepared for the regular season, not break rhythmn and possibly even be involved in trades, the players would have no, or at least less, incentive to give any ground in negotiations.

The lockout forces the players to put their money where their mouth is.

Ultimately, your question basically, whether you realize it or not, says, "Why would anybody ever attempt to bluff the other side in any kind of fight?"

The answer is obvious.

I think as times goes on, in theory both sides should be willing to take less, because there is a cost to both sides missing games. But think about it, the owners no longer have to provide a 130 million in salaries, . The season ticket holders still pay the money for the ticket upfront. The teams have the money with that to cover the debts without salaries easily, they will have to do something to reimburse the ticket holders eventually. I think that makes the lockout less painful for the owners then you think, but the fans might get upset....

don't forget the potential $700 million dollar damages the players could get in the tv contract case. that's pretty big leverage, I see that as a chip where the players waive that claim in exchange for an extra $700 million in the pot to them.

There are cracks in the players already, IMO. De Smith has become the problem in getting a deal done. He seems more focused on cheap untruthful rhetoric, then he does getting a deal done. The fact that De SMith is continuing to trash the NFL constantly, is a huge bush league mistake. The NFLPA is bush league, you can tell by the actions of their leader IMO.
I think that D SMith just wants to piss everybody off, and he is from what I hear, on both sides of the fence, people he represents and those he is in conflict with. Until something changes with the NFLPA leadership I have a feeling, no football this year. Maybe I am wrong ,but I can promise you SMith is just making the owners move farth away then closer. The sooner the players he supposedly represents realizes that, and start to have problem with paying their mortgages, then we will see a fold IMO.
If you think SMith is going to get what he wants from the owners with his rhetoric and bashing these guys, you are nuts... I believe I might be watching the collapse of the unity based on the way SMith is acting... That is all I can make out of his actions since the last ruling...
I am sure you will correct me, if I am wrong, and maybe I am, but please tell me how Smith is helping to get a deal done...

I haven't been following what Smith is doing. Will read up and give you my opinion.

I heard him today on Sirius. I don't like him, he's got the wrong attitude for what he's trying to accomplish. First, he really insults the intelligence of the fans when he says things like "the NFL sued to prevent football"---everyone with half a brain knows the players sued, not the NFL. Second, his rhetroic is over-the-top, saying things like the deal offered is the "worst in the history of sports"---no rational person belives that. Also, his attitude when they won at the district court level was all wrong. He was acting like the case was over and it was decided that the NFL violated the antitrust laws, when that was not the case at all. That was the time to approach the league for a deal, not threaten to seek to find them in contempt when they did not hold practices the next morning.

I know he's just trying to do his job and be a zealous advocate for the players, but I think he's taking it too far, given the stakes.

It's no secret I lean towards the players side in this issue, but I agree about not liking De Smith too much in all of this, wasn't a wise choice by the players to elect this cat it's leader IMO. Hopefully it gets settled inspite of him.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> don't forget the potential $700 million dollar
> damages the players could get in the tv contract
> case. that's pretty big leverage, I see that as a
> chip where the players waive that claim in
> exchange for an extra $700 million in the pot to
> them.


Yes I agree, I think that is what the hardliners on the NFLPA is holding onto I guess rather then want to get a deal. But then that whole judgement will be up for appeal by the 8th before they ever get that war chest. So it just pushes the fight further away. I hpe that is not the case, but that is all I can gather from Smiths actions lately. I think ultimately that is probably a mistake, I think if he appears as an obstructionist to the people he represents by waiting on the ruling for his war chest, and then if he gets it before the appeal, acting like he won again, all beating his chest, and then to have a setback on appeal.
I understand his tactic, I believe it is to wait to negotiate until he gets the bounce from a ruling rather then the other way around. But then again, he is acting oblivious to the oversight of the 8th... I dont know what is going to happen, it suely does not seem like SMith has the temprament for the job that needs to take place to get a deal done. I think he is letting the players down, his rhetoric, is only making the players look bad, weaken their resolve, and strengthen the owners when he attacks a handful of guys with the largest egos in our land.. Whatever it equals none of it is good for us getting football...

Chyren-I think once the deal allows each team or a majority of the teams to cash flow close to 40 million a year. Then the owners will probably fold. I am guessing the owners want an increase of 20 to 30 million a team and they can live with that. That would equate to about an extra 650+ million of the initial billion they asked for, I think the players offered 500., I dont think the owners take less then 650, but are probably asking for about 750 to 800 right now. I think the player will give more then the 500 million, and will make a gentlemans bet to that prediction.

Good. A gentlemen's bet.