Skip to content

Judge Nelson takes case “under advisement,” encourages further negotiations

NFL Lockout Football AP

As expected, Judge Susan Nelson has taken the motion to lift the lockout submitted by the players in the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit “under advisement,” a fancy lawyer way of saying, “I’ll think about it.”  Per various reports, Judge Nelson said she will issue a ruling in “a couple of weeks.”

It shouldn’t take that long.

Given that, as explained by Albert Breer of NFL Network, Judge Nelson suggested that the parties continue their negotiations, it could be that she’s giving them enough time to try to work something out.

We had hoped that she’d declare that a ruling would come in two weeks, and that in the interim the parties would be required to submit to mediation.  She hasn’t gone that far, yet.  According to Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe, however, Judge Nelson has made her feelings clear:  “This is a matter that should be resolved,” Judge Nelson said, per Bedard.  “A lot of folks are impacted.”

As one of the folks impacted by the lockout, I agree with that assessment.  But I wish Judge Nelson would compel the parties to return to the table, in lieu of merely hoping that they will.

Here’s hoping that she will.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
61 Responses to “Judge Nelson takes case “under advisement,” encourages further negotiations”
  1. zizzod says: Apr 6, 2011 5:25 PM

    Well that was productive.

  2. eaglebobby says: Apr 6, 2011 5:27 PM

    I’m sure you’re chagrined by the fact that the judge didn’t lift the lockout–afer you’ve been schilling for the players most of the time. IMHO, this is a win, maybe a temporary win for the owners–in that she didn’t issue an injunction right away. The players should take this for what it means–even though she asked the NFL attorney a lot of questions, she must not have believed that the players have suffered “irreparable harm”. If the players were smart, they’d set up a meeting now–and leave that leech Kessler and De Smith out of the room while they do it.

  3. brambo67 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:28 PM

    My God.
    For once I agree with Mike.

    Judge Nelson’s first call should be to enforce both sides to arbitration/mediation.

    That way we can have clarity who is at fault for the breakdown in previous negotiations.

  4. ruckinfidiculous says: Apr 6, 2011 5:29 PM

    ““This is a matter that should be resolved,” Judge Nelson said, per Bedard. “A lot of folks are impacted.””

    Translation: You’re a bunch of grown men, now quit acting like a bunch of whiny kids and settle this on your own. Stop wasting the court’s time.

  5. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 5:31 PM

    Here’s hoping she orders them back to the table because the owners won’t return to negotiations unless forced. That’s why they delayed submitting a proposal until the deadline was looming.

    And before the ignorant start squawking, the players cannot return to negotiations (unless ordered by the court) without assurances from the owners that their negotiating efforts will not be used against them in the decertification suit. The owners refuse to provide that assurance because they are more interested in winning the legal point than in reaching a new collective bargaining agreement. The players have repeatedly offered to resume negotiations.

  6. airraid77 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:33 PM

    those of you hoping for football, need to get use to the idea their will be no football for a substantial amount time.
    Their is no reason to think that even with an injunction that their will be football…seeing as how there are serious in granting the injunction… as suggested by the judge.

  7. ar1888 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:34 PM

    Wow, it took a judge to tell them what any moron could have. Get back to it and work something out.

  8. FinFan68 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:36 PM

    What, if anything, has the NLRB said concerning the decert/lockout issue? It seems to me that is the only body that could rule either tactic legit or invalid which would be necessary for this judge to make a ruling either way.

  9. billybats says: Apr 6, 2011 5:36 PM

    “It shouldn’t take that long”?

    Why not? Because you believe that the players should win? Perhaps the NFL Owners raised arguments that will take time to consider.

    I really wish that you could actually call balls and strikes on this issue instead of revealing your lefty political bias with each article you write.

    Here’s hoping the NFL Owners prevail over these whiny players and De “Jackie Chiles” Smith.

  10. cappa662 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:37 PM

    Hopefully she lifts the lockout one way or another.

  11. kom2k10 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:41 PM

    As a fan, how can you root for the players??? The PLAYERS SALARIES are the reason why I can’t go to a game with a family of 4 for less than $1,300!!!

    News flash!!! The owners DO NOT PAY these outrageous contracts! WE THE FANS PAY THEM!!!! When Jamarcus Russel walked away with $30 Million, Al Davis didn’t pay that!! He passes the cost along to the fans by ticket prices, parking, and high concession prices!!! If the owners are trying to reduce the salaries of these ridiculously spoiled players, then I’m all for it! Maybe I can actually afford to go to a few games next year!

  12. pooflingingmonkey says: Apr 6, 2011 5:43 PM

    Translation:

    Why don’t you two big babies share the playpen? There are lots of toys to go around, so stop whining and find a way to get along.

  13. freddyfelder says: Apr 6, 2011 5:54 PM

    The Players was Hoggin The Ball and Taking all the Shots… So The Owners was going to take they ball home right after the game, So instead of finishing the Game the Players left the game early and ran to the Owners home to tell on them to they Momma ( The Justice System) Momma tells them to behave and be friends again… the end…

  14. willycents says: Apr 6, 2011 6:01 PM

    Deb, I have to take issue with your post above. The NFLPA wishes to talk about the ending of the lockout…SETTLEMENT talks, not a negotiated CBA. They refuse to sit down with the NFL and discuss the CBA. Read the fricking words that are printed. Please read and try to comprehend what the words on the screen say, if you have to, google the words you don’t understand. There is a heck of a lot of difference between settlement discussions and CBA negotiations. How about the NFLPA leadership offer to sit down with the owners and talk, no lawyers present? I am sure you would never go for that because you cannot comprehend what negotiation means. Respectfully, of course.

  15. wellthatsaloadofcrap says: Apr 6, 2011 6:06 PM

    I’m not sure what anyone expected today, it went pretty well for the players all things considered. It would have been nice if she ordered mediation but it seems like she was putting the screws to the NFL a little bit more than the players.

    kom2k10, you’re right the fans pay the salaries. So don’t get mad at the players, get mad at other fans. The player’s salaries are not the reason you can’t take your family to a game. The reason you can’t take your family to a game is there are other people who are willing to pay more to go than you are. Neither side is to blame, it is all market driven.

  16. easyeddie says: Apr 6, 2011 6:07 PM

    “This is a matter that should be resolved,” Judge Nelson said, per Bedard. “A lot of folks are impacted.”

    Judge Nelson can say these things until she’s blue in the face. Neither the owners nor the players care evidently that “a lot of folks are impacted.”
    Part of me is begining to wish this impass to go on indefinitely and for bad things to fall on both sides — that the owners lose millions hand over fist and the players their careers.

  17. commandercornpone says: Apr 6, 2011 6:09 PM

    flawrieaux, u arent affected. u dont own, manage, coach, play for or sell hot dogs for a team. u dont agent for a player or a coach, or have an actual job in the nfl or nflpa*.

    nice try, thanx for playing, sorry we are all out of parting gifts.

  18. scytherius says: Apr 6, 2011 6:11 PM

    Was a litigator in the Federal courts for 25 years. Pretty standard approach she is taking.

  19. lifelong says: Apr 6, 2011 6:14 PM

    @kom2k10:
    Actually, the laws of supply and demand are the reasons you can’t go to a game for a buck a ticket like in the good ole days. Owners raise ticket prices, stadiums keep selling out, so they’ll raise them again until they stop selling out. This would be true even if the players were paid nothing (uh, like in college football maybe?).

  20. eaglebobby says: Apr 6, 2011 6:17 PM

    So DEB, even if the owners waited until the last minute to improve their proposal, why did the players walk away? Why didn’t they say, “okay, there’s been some movement, let’s work on this”–instead, they decertified and that very same day, filed a 49 page lawsuit against the NFL. No, you have it wrong–ever since they hired De Smith, the only thing he’s wanted to do was to take the owners to court. Right up until last week, the owners have been practically beggin the players to restart negotiations–it was only last Monday, that the players–perhaps their confidence shaken–all of a sudden then wanted to negotiate. And before you repeat the oft-cited line of the players that the owners pulled out of the CBA early, remember that BOTH parties agreed either one could make the move–if the players thought the economic model wasn’t working for them, there’s no doubt, they’d been the ones who pulled out early. And the other question is if they’re so hurt by all of this, where were Brady, Manning, and Brees at today?

  21. bluepike says: Apr 6, 2011 6:18 PM

    The judge assured BOTH parties, that if they returned to federal mediated negotiations, that NEITHER side would have to worry about any legal problems arising that they may be afraid of. So, there is no excuse for either side – I just wish that she would have ORDERED them to do so.

  22. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 6:19 PM

    eaglebobby says:
    Apr 6, 2011 5:27 PM
    I’m sure you’re chagrined by the fact that the judge didn’t lift the lockout–afer you’ve been schilling for the players most of the time. IMHO, this is a win, maybe a temporary win for the owners–in that she didn’t issue an injunction right away.
    ===================

    Well, that’s a very interesting opinion you have there, Johnny Cochran.

    I say “interesting” because I have seen legal experts on numerous different web sites and news channels analyze this hearing in advance and not one of them predicted that the judge would issue a ruling today.

    In fact, except for hearing on minor motions, this almost never happens. A vast majority of the time, cases are taken “under advisement” and the judge is within their authority to issue their ruling at any time- they are not even required to give advance notice of it’s release.

    So, while you are obviously spinning your own personal desired outcome into your “theory”, there is no basis in fact to believe that the judge not ruling immediately is a bad sign for the players.

  23. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 6:28 PM

    @lifelong:

    Don’t bother.

    I have been trying to make the “supply and demand” argument with these people for years.

    It stuns me that so many people don’t understand the most basic tenets of a free market society.

    Player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices. Ticket prices are what they are because fans buy them.

    In fact, ticket prices are the reason for high player salaries, as salaries are determined by revenue.

    But what seems so obvious to you, me, and a depressing small number of others on here completely escapes the vast majority of Fanboy Planet.

    Do yourself a favor and save your breath. It’s wasted here.

  24. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 6:33 PM

    eaglebobby says:
    Apr 6, 2011 6:17 PM
    So DEB, even if the owners waited until the last minute to improve their proposal, why did the players walk away? Why didn’t they say, “okay, there’s been some movement, let’s work on this”–instead, they decertified and that very same day, filed a 49 page lawsuit against the NFL.
    =============================

    The players didn’t have that choice.

    Due to the owner’s deadline, the CBA was set to expire that night. If the players waited to decertify until after the deadline expired, they would have had to wait 6 months to file the anti-trust suit.

    Could you at least try basing your opinion on actual facts?

  25. hoopsdoc says: Apr 6, 2011 6:33 PM

    These comments are highly predictable. Fans of big market teams like the cowboys, redskins and patriot are rooting for the players. Fans of small market teams like the bills, packers, and colts root for the owners.

    In the interest of the competitive balance that has made the league the preeminent sports force in the world, we should ALL be rooting for the owners. For it would be a crying shame if the NFL went the route of baseball and Jerruh Jones and Dan Snyder could buy super bowls year after year.

  26. chedberg says: Apr 6, 2011 6:34 PM

    @zizzod,

    Couldn’t have said it better myself!!

  27. thefiesty1 says: Apr 6, 2011 6:35 PM

    What a waste of time energy and MONEY. The lawyers are raping the owners and the players. They are nothing but a bunch of scum suckers.

    The trade association (union*) is nothing more than a scam. The judge should of seen through that.

  28. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 6:36 PM

    willycents says:
    Apr 6, 2011 6:01 PM
    Deb, I have to take issue with your post above. The NFLPA wishes to talk about the ending of the lockout…SETTLEMENT talks, not a negotiated CBA. They refuse to sit down with the NFL and discuss the CBA.
    =====================

    That settlement would become the CBA, just like it did last time the players and owners went to court.

    That’s how it was settled last time, that’s how it will be settled this time.

    Glad I could clear that up for you.

  29. bukes111 says: Apr 6, 2011 6:42 PM

    kom2k10 says:
    Apr 6, 2011 5:41 PM
    As a fan, how can you root for the players??? The PLAYERS SALARIES are the reason why I can’t go to a game with a family of 4 for less than $1,300!!!
    _________________________________

    Yes, player’s salaries are a component of ticket prices but when was the last time you saw an owner drop prices when a team slashes payroll to re-build… Never! What drives prices is demand. As long as corporations are willing to shell millions on seats, owners can jack up ticket prices. The excess revenue goes to the players.
    And I’m not hating on the corporations. Corporate tix sales help the NFL grow to what it is today. However they’re the ones forcing you to watch the games at home.

  30. bigsuede says: Apr 6, 2011 6:42 PM

    lol- silly Kom2k10- the NFL is for wealthy people to attend. The ticket prices are that high because people pay for it- not because of player salaries.

    If you want prices to go down- stop going. Giving owners more of the pie isnt going to help your cause any.

  31. the4cannon's says: Apr 6, 2011 6:53 PM

    i side with the players,
    i know what its like to bust my ass daily to make others rich

  32. mistrezzrachael says: Apr 6, 2011 6:58 PM

    Deb says:
    Apr 6, 2011 5:31 PM
    Here’s hoping she orders them back to the table because the owners won’t return to negotiations unless forced. That’s why they delayed submitting a proposal until the deadline was looming.

    And before the ignorant start squawking, the players cannot return to negotiations (unless ordered by the court) without assurances from the owners that their negotiating efforts will not be used against them in the decertification suit. The owners refuse to provide that assurance because they are more interested in winning the legal point than in reaching a new collective bargaining agreement. The players have repeatedly offered to resume negotiations

    You are completely out of your mind thinking the owners wouldn’t return to negociating table.

    But guarantee if they do that their offers will not be as strong as the one made a few weeks ago. Players have way overplayed their hand here. Just as last player strike was within their rights..owners have right to lockout.

    God you sound like either you or daddy was in a union shop or 2…Duh! ..Your statements shows that you are dumber than a bag of Rocks.

  33. bukes111 says: Apr 6, 2011 7:08 PM

    hoopsdoc says:
    Apr 6, 2011 6:33 PM
    These comments are highly predictable. Fans of big market teams like the cowboys, redskins and patriot are rooting for the players. Fans of small market teams like the bills, packers, and colts root for the owners.
    __________________________________

    I actually think it’s a left wing vs right wing(and a couple guys who washed out after high school football) where left wingers are supporting the players and the right wingers are supporting the owners.
    The funny thing is that there is alot of socialistic practices within the NFL (salary cap, draft, etc). So you have the pro-owner group who I believe are mostly conservatives fighting to keep these socialist practices intact while the pro-player group is fighting for the open market to determine player salaries.

  34. scytherius says: Apr 6, 2011 7:10 PM

    @realitypolice

    =====================

    Your comments are dead on. Well said.

  35. rugdog100 says: Apr 6, 2011 7:12 PM

    Ramble on…

  36. viguy007 says: Apr 6, 2011 7:15 PM

    I would like to propose a possible solution since it appears that the NFL real revenue (shared plus local) and the pooled shared revenue represented by the cap will soar in the future (According to “Forbes” the highly respected business magazine, based on TV revenue alone more then 50% beginning with the new 2014 contracts.) .

    1) One of the players main complains is that their salaries are not guaranteed. If an NFL team cuts a player part way through his contract, he’s done, no more money is paid to him. The players therefore bear all the risk of injury, or deteriorating performance. The only implications for the team are if a signing bonus was paid, that money is lost, it is not refunded by the player. There is also a cap-hit to the team as the money which was prorated over the life of the players contract is immediately counted against the team’s salary cap. Only about 40% of the players have received any kind of signing bonus and therefore only these players have any type of guarantee of the money in their contract. Since guaranteed contracts would be welcomed and have a real value for the players, they may be willing to reduce their cap percentage in exchange. The owners might be willing to do something they have dismissed as too expensive in the past because now each 1% differential of the players share mean at least $4,250,000 yearly to each team. To make it more tenable to the owners, the individual maximum could be 5 to 7 million dollars minus any signing bonus the player received. This would protect those average players who need the protection most. A reduction of 5% would be worth at least $21 million per team per year, and the players salary Cap for each team would still be in excess of 200 million dollars. The actual details of the implementation would be worked out by both parties to this agreement. This should zero out or accrue slightly to the benefit of the owners.

    2) It may be in the NFLPA interest to maintain the membership of retired players, and set up a jointly administered employer/employee welfare (health-disability) and pension plan, as exists with most unions. Since the benefits retired players now receive are relatively small, and based on projections that Cap revenue should explode upward starting with the 2014 TV contract, these benefits could be included in the gross cap (although not for individual teams). The players then would have a greater voice in how these benefits were handled, at the current time they have none. This would reduce the immediate financial obligations of the owners (245 million dollars this past year), and thereby increase the justification for maintaining a close to current percentage of revenue the players receive. In addition, the retired players will have an more effective voice in looking out for their interests, and every player will retire at some point.

    3) The percentage of total revenue that makes up the cap would now be lessened, as the owners have been demanding, however the players received something they wanted in exchange. This is what real negotiations are all about. Yet, this in itself would not take care of the owners problem. Therefore, instead of evenly dividing the pool of shared money amongst the owners, the owners could divide a portion of it proportionally. For example, the first 2 billion dollars of the pool of shared money among the owners is cut out, and shared equally among the owners as it is now done. However any revenues in the pool above this amount would be divided in an inverse proportion to the real revenue of each team, as compared to the NFL average. This would adjust for the differences in “Local” revenue, yet not wipe it out completely. The divergence in the total real revenue of each team would be lessened. The details and formula would be worked out by the owners amongst themselves, and the only one who would need to see their books would be the NFL office itself. The owners problem would be solved by the owners, and their sacrifice. Thus, they would not have to be demanding the players to make a major sacrifice, which they fear may well be the precedent for sacrifices asked of them in the future.

  37. fatelvis77 says: Apr 6, 2011 7:20 PM

    By telling both sides to settle the judge was delivering the message that this is a relatively simple business dispute that can easily be resolved if both parties negotiate in good faith. There’s a 99% chance she has made up her mind but she knows that a negotiated solution is better for pro football than the ruling she will deliver.

    Typically, at these type of proceedings, a message is delivered to the lawyers for both sides “off the record,” that a ruling is not going to be helpful even if it is favorable. This is designed to create doubt and encourage settlement.

    The players have the better legal argument, but if they get the lockout lifted but a global settlement hasn’t been reached the practical effect will be chaos, which will be a pyrrhic victory.

  38. hobartbaker says: Apr 6, 2011 7:47 PM

    Judge Nelson’s pearl necklace courtesy of hobart. :)

  39. footballfan292 says: Apr 6, 2011 7:57 PM

    Im hoping she lifts the lockout and forces both sides back to the table.

    Let’s get this thing over with and get back to football.

    Im sick and tired of both sides trying to screw each other into a bad deal. That bullcrap needs to end right now.

  40. ggeden says: Apr 6, 2011 8:01 PM

    Part of me is interested to see how pro-football would look like and function should the NFLPA* completely win the anti-trust case, as per Kesler’s vision.

    Part of me wants the NFL to die a little so that we see drastic change — Goodell ousted, rules of the game returned to how they used to be, lowered pricing, etc etc.

    Part of me wants the UFL to prosper till it becomes a rival pro-league equally acquiring NFL-caliber players, seeing more expansion teams, and/or NFL teams ‘relocating’ to the UFL.

  41. tony420 says: Apr 6, 2011 8:26 PM

    Any reports of Mike Vrabel stealing anything??

  42. mick730 says: Apr 6, 2011 8:43 PM

    I can only speak for what goes on at Lambeau, so I do not know what might be the case at other stadiums. My family has had a large block of season tickets since long before I was born. The location of these seats changed just ever so slightly after the rennovation, but basically stayed the same. The people who sit around us are the same families and guests who have always been there. As most people know, the season ticket waiting list is decades long.

    The point. Corporations are not buying up all the seats at Lambeau Field. I have cousins who have purchased box seats, indoor ones, in the names of their companies, but the rise in ticket prices at Lambeau is not because of corporate demand.

    For the 1996 season, the face value of our tickets was $39.00. Last season, the face value was $79.00. It is my belief that the increase is because of the increase in operating costs for the Packers, the biggest of which is player salary costs.

    If Supply and Demand were the driving factor in ticket prices for Green Bay, the price would surely be much higher. The Packers make a conscious effort not to price the average resident of Green Bay out of the market for a ticket to a Packer game and I know that the Packers believe their average ticket price is in line with the average ticket price around the league.

    In 1959, Johnny Unitas’s salary from the Baltimore Colts was $25 grand per year. Now I read that Peyton Manning is demanding a salary of over $23 million dollars per year from the Colts. Anybody who claims that player salaries have no impact on ticket prices is an idiot.

  43. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 8:53 PM

    bukes111 says:
    Apr 6, 2011 7:08 PM

    The funny thing is that there is alot of socialistic practices within the NFL (salary cap, draft, etc). So you have the pro-owner group who I believe are mostly conservatives fighting to keep these socialist practices intact while the pro-player group is fighting for the open market to determine player salaries.
    ========================

    Hallelujah.

    Someone gets it. Someone finally gets it.

    Everyone who thinks they are “pro-business” are supporting the owners, because they think that is the “capitalist” position.

    Meanwhile true independent businessmen like myself (and I assume bukes111) realize nothing could be further from the truth. That in reality the way the NFL operates is about as anti-free market and capitalist as you can get.

    As I have said all along, just because the players are (or were) in a “union”, which has never really operated as a true union but more of a trade association, doesn’t make them “laborers” in the sense everyone on here is thinking.

    NFL players negotiate their own contracts, within the framework of the CBA, based upon their market value. They sell their services to either the highest bidder or to the organization that best meets their criteria.

    That’s business, that’s free market.

    Not the price fixing and collusion and corporate welfare that is the backbone of the league.

    The average player has 3-4 years to make most of the money they will make in their entire life, yet you call them greedy for trying to maximize their value.

    You tell them they should sacrifice for the good of the ruling class, the owners. You tell them they should be happy for whatever the owners are willing to give them, and should put the good of the league over their own free market value.

    That’s straight out of marxist ideology- each according to his abilities, each according to his needs.

  44. mick730 says: Apr 6, 2011 9:28 PM

    I concur that this discussion tends to be along ideological lines, but I’m not buying into reality’s belief that the pro owner folks like myself believe for a minute that the way the NFL operates is representative of free market capitalism. It’s not, it’s very socialistic.

    But so what? It’s an entertainment business that tens of millions of people enjoy. It doesn’t have to represent unfettered capitalism. What is so truly awful about 1700 people benefiting economicallyfar more than 99% of Americans
    and in return, not having the full benefit of unfettered capitalism? Man, cry me a river!

    Tens of millions of fans thoroughly enjoy the NFL, from the draft, to the Super Bowl, from offseason trades and free agent signings to the creating of rosters over the preaseason.

    The leftists on here, and I don’t believe for a minute that posters like reality or deb are independent business owners, want to destroy the entire system of the NFL, not because they are big defenders of capitalism ( reality’s comments about the “ruling class” sort of give him away), but rather because they are big supporters of unions. Now why would unions and their supporters be so interested in the NFLPA which only has around 1700 members? Well, because labor unions are so roundly disliked. Less than 7% of the private sector workforce now belongs to unions. The vast majority of union members now work for the government and are funded by taxpayers, which is becoming increasingly untenable. Laborites are looking for some kind, any kind, of victory somewhere. The NFLPA gives them a high profile case to get behind and push the agenda of organized labor.

    The big fly in the oinment of course, is that the 1700 members of the NFLPA are in no way a hardship case. Indeed, they represent some of the highest paid wage earners on the planet. The lowest paid member of the NFL earns almost ten times the pay of the average salaried or hourly worker in this country. So it is a tough sell. On top of that, what the NFLPA wants, unfettered free agency, the end to the draft, will drastically change what those tens of millions of fans really like.

    So, most supporters of the owners fully realize that the NFL is not the real world, nor does it need to be. It’s a game in which the participants are hugely rewarded. Unfettered capitalism in the NFL would produce a very dull, uninteresting product in which the two most despised people in the game, Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder would finally be able to succeed at what they have been attempting for years; buying multiple Super Bowls.

    Reality would like for everyone to believe that pro owner folks are ignorant dullards who simply follow what fox news is telling them, and that he and his ilk, are independent, wealthy business people who are tyring to defend the free market capitalist way of life in America by defending the rights of NFL players.

    Baloney. Reality and most of the others are simply schills for the labor movemenet.

  45. joeb386 says: Apr 6, 2011 9:51 PM

    “Uh, hey I’m going to keep thinking about this for a little while longer, but in the meantime, why don’t you work out your own stuff so I don’t have to make any decisions “

  46. realfann says: Apr 6, 2011 10:23 PM

    Allowing the NFL to have an anti-trust exemption is fundamentally un-American because it allows the owners to take away free market conditions.

    They want to impose their own rules & regulations and employee jackasses like Goodell to enforce them. Rules like salary caps.

    We allow them because the majority of us do not want the NFL to turn into MLB where the teams with the deepest pockets get most of the playoff appearances & world series titles.

    The Yankees have bought all their decades of success. We don’t want Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones doing the same thing in the NFL.

    Interestingly enough, neither does Jerry.

    He is quite clear that he wants to make as much personal money out of the Cowboys as possible. He doesn’t want to be able to spend more on players. He wants to spend less.

    Goodness knows what Dan wants. It’s not clear even he knows.

    PS to the Packer folks that keep telling stories about their club and inviting us to apply relevance to the rest of the league.

    The Packers are not run like any other franchise.

    Your stories are not relevant.

    Be quiet.

  47. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 10:24 PM

    @williecents …

    Reality Police already addressed your post. No need for me to embarrass you further.

    @mistrezzrachael …

    From the way you talk, I gather your schtick at the, a-hem, house is truck driver or lady wrestler. Get many customers that way?

    @mick730 …

    I’m crushed that you don’t believe any non-tea drinkers own businesses.

  48. FinFan68 says: Apr 6, 2011 10:27 PM

    Well said mick730. I don’t necessarily believe that realitypolice and some of the other pro-player folks are schills. I think they do have some valid points based on the original tenets of the early labor unions but those points are not so valid as it applies to this particular “industry”. They just don’t, or can’t, differentiate between this players’ “union” and the unions of old. There is a definitive breakdown on ideological lines that is playing out on a national level and this one, as you said, seems to be the holy grail. I still think the NLRB should have the first crack at the legality of the decertification and the lockout insofar as the timing vs. the previous CBA, etc. I think that ruling would necessarily impact the anti-trust lawsuits that are playing out right now. I am no expert on labor law, but it seems to me that the clause about waiting 6 months to file for decert was put in place to prevent the very tactic that the players union has enacted. I am not saying that they are or are not wrong, just that the NLRB is the authority that determines that.

  49. realfann says: Apr 6, 2011 10:30 PM

    @mick730

    You need to take some reading comprehension classes.

    Neither Deb or Reality police made any claim that the NFL is representative of a free market.

    They actually said the opposite.

    As for supporters of the players being “leftest”.

    That’s 100% BS.

    The owners have caused this problem which is pissing a lot of us off. So they get the blame.

    Simple. Not ideological. Not a grand union conspiracy. Not any of your tin foil hat theories.

  50. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 10:35 PM

    @eaglebobby …

    Reality Police already addressed the issue of the deadline. The players had to decertify within the time limit or they would have had no way to combat the lockout for six months. The proposal was given to them less than 12 hours before the deadline.

    You need to understand the difference between wanting to go to court and being willing to go to court. Gene Upshaw was not an attorney, so he was more intimidated by the idea of litigation. As I’ve posted before, I’m not a De Smith fan and would have preferred attorney David Cornwell had been elected to the position. But as accomplished litigators, neither Smith nor Cornwell is intimidated by the idea of going to court if necessary. And neither are the team of litigators the owners hired.

    Perhaps you’re not aware that the owners began this process by hiring Bob Batterman, the attorney who ran the lockout for the NHL, so if anyone was planning for things to go as they have, it was the owners.

    You’re incorrect about the owners begging the players to resume negotiations, and I can’t imagine where you came up with that. For months before things broke down in March, the owners repeatedly walked away from the negotiating table. And the owners forced the players to include the opt-out clause.

    Brady, Brees, and Manning were asked by the NFLPA to lend their well-known names to the suit. However, none of the players were needed in court today. They had no role to play in these proceedings. How many owners were in court today?

  51. hoopsdoc says: Apr 6, 2011 10:52 PM

    Mick730-bravo. Very well said.

  52. bukes111 says: Apr 6, 2011 11:31 PM

    Here’s the thing, I hope the draft and the cap are still in place. My position is that I wished that the previous agreement was renewed. Which is the same stance the players are taking. I enjoy the draft and as a fan, I like the salary cap because it promotes parity. But I’m against the owners asking for money and limitations against the players. Teams should only pay players what they can afford. The problem is most payrolls approach the cap than they do the floor. Owners know what they can afford. Pay within your means. If they renew the old agreement, teams can pay within there means if they stay closer to the floor. That’s why I’m on the player’s side.

  53. stevecmh says: Apr 6, 2011 11:58 PM

    With all due respect, it is irrelevant how much money the players earn for their services. They earn exactly as much as the owners are willing to pay them. That is how it should be in our economic system.

    If the owners didn’t violate our laws and labor regulations, as well as the labor contract they themselves agreed to, they would not find themselves in court.

    The players have sought legal remedies to protect their rights and economic interests. The availability of these remedies is also an important part of our economic system.

  54. buzzbissinger says: Apr 7, 2011 12:07 AM

    Judge Nelson, he was great in “The Breakfast Club”.

  55. goombar2 says: Apr 7, 2011 1:49 AM

    mick730 says: Apr 6, 2011 8:43 PM :

    In 1959, Johnny Unitas’s salary from the Baltimore Colts was $25 grand per year. Now I read that Peyton Manning is demanding a salary of over $23 million dollars per year from the Colts. Anybody who claims that player salaries have no impact on ticket prices is an idiot.

    But the player costs don’t impact the prices. If you’re argument was true, then the last CBA wouldn’t have included a provision telling teams there was an absolute minimum they could spend on player salaries.

    The crux of the whole argument is whether players should get 40% up to 56% of revenue minus 2 billion. So the limits on player expenditures come after the profits and are divided up (roughly) by what a team is willing to spend on a particular player vs how it affect the team against the salary cap.

    If your theory was correct, the Pack could decide to pay Rodgers 30 mil next season and just raise ticket prices.

    The driving force of the ticket price is what the market will bear.

    The driving force behind player salaries are idiot owners and bloated TV contracts. And when I say idiot owners I don’t hate all owners, I’m just talking about guys like Synder who pay guys like Haynesworth in brinks trucks.

    Oh, and as a Packer fan I have no dog in this fight. FA was supposed to destroy the Pack, and that didn’t happen. There is no owner of the Pack (well I guess I am one of thousands) so none of that hoopla applies.

    I see points on both sides. I’d love if the NFL kept most of it’s rules and I hope the players get their money. I love everything about football. I just wish these guys could (gulp, here comes a dirty word for us Americans) compromise.

  56. shrike58 says: Apr 7, 2011 7:45 AM

    What goombar2 said.

    At the bottom of this whole fight I suspect is a faction of owners who really, really liked it when the cartel could keep players in indentured servitude and think that this is their oppertunity to go back to that golden age.

    On the other hand, I suspect that there is a faction of players who believe that the TV money train can never be derailed.

    Both are delusional positions.

    Both these delusions need to be capped in the head to make progress.

  57. thelockoutbeard says: Apr 7, 2011 11:13 AM

    The Lockout Continues grows on and so does the length of my Lockout Beard! I’m not shaving until they start playing again.. You can follow me on twitter to see the progression of my beard and the lockout. Follow me @thelockoutbeard

    -TheLockoutBeard-

  58. FinFan68 says: Apr 7, 2011 9:24 PM

    stevecmh says:
    Apr 6, 2011 11:58 PM
    If the owners didn’t violate our laws and labor regulations, as well as the labor contract they themselves agreed to, they would not find themselves in court.
    ——————–
    The owners are in court because the players decertified thus making some items in the CBA (signed by the union reps) subject to anti-trust litigation. Those laws don’t really apply to collective bargaining agreements. The only part of the contract that the owners violated was establishing a lockout fund rather than insisting on a better deal from the TV contracts. The owners enacted the mutually agreed upon opt-out clause and wanted to negotiate a new CBA. That was the owner’s right and the players had that right as well but chose not to use it because they admittedly are content with the last deal. They also admit the last deal favored the players. What also was a violation of the contract was the players plan to decertify and go to court so they could have court overhead cover in the next CBA that is obviously coming. The owners lockout plan was only if the players refused to negotiate, which, they did. The players walked away and went to court and the league reacted with the lockout. If the players would have negotiated, there would have been no lockout. It is all a big PR game by both sides. The legality of the decert and the subsequent lockout are in question before the courts. The problem is that the NLRB is the body that decides the legality of those two issues. If the NLRB finds the decert a sham negotiating ploy, then the anti-trust issues would not have merit because they were negotiated as part of a CBA. If the NLRB finds that the lockout is not legit, the owners would be screwed…in 6 months when the players would legally be authorized to seek anti-trust relief for the owners actions since the CBA expired.

  59. liontomyself says: Apr 8, 2011 12:30 AM

    Deb says :

    And the owners forced the players to include the opt-out clause.

    _________

    Lol…Really? The best contract the players ever had was forced on them by the owners?????

    Really????

  60. liontomyself says: Apr 8, 2011 12:42 AM

    Deb says :

    Brady, Brees, and Manning were asked by the NFLPA to lend their well-known names to the suit. However, none of the players were needed in court today. They had no role to play in these proceedings. How many owners were in court today?
    ___________

    What?……

    The players can have counsel represent them but the owners HAVE to show their faces instead of just being represented by counsel as well?

    Why, exactly, is that????????

    Last I heard, lawyers are not suing the NFL….Brady, etc. are. And, the owners and players are both represented by counsel…. so please explain why the owners need to be there but the players don’t

  61. liontomyself says: Apr 8, 2011 12:46 AM

    Oops…..sorry Deb. I now realize where you were going with that.

    Basically, the same thing I just said back to you.

    I admit, I didn’t read that one carefully enough. My apologies again.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!