That said, consider the following:
- the owners opted out of the current CBA, creating this situation
- the owners have locked out the players; this is not a strike
- the owners are asking for more money, and more importantly than that, are attempting to change the system from a revenue split by % to a fixed amount of total money for the players
- the players would take the last CBA right now and would be happy playing under it

So, who is really behind the current situation? It’s not hard to understand.

No the owners do not have to appeal right away. In fact any appeal would automatically be delayed until lawyers have time to review Judge Nelson’s ruling and draft their appeal motion. It will take at minimum a few days and could be even longer depending on specific circumstances. However, in this particular case a stay is almost certain to be granted which would prevent the lockout from being lifted on a temporary basis, which is one of the reasons stays are generally granted in cases like this. It serves nobody’s interests to have the lockout lifted for a few a days or weeks only to be shut down again, it would create chaos. So to answer your question, no the league does not have to appeal right away but expect them to immediately ask for a stay pending the appeal.

So I’m hoping for the players to lose this Monday. Seems to be the fastest way back to the bargaining table. If the players win, then I hope the appeals process moves quickly regardless of the result.

The only real worry is that the players pursue Kessling’s vision of an NFL with no free agency rules, no draft, no salary cap, no revenue sharing, no deals with TV, no etc… That will diminish the product, just like it did with other leagues that are no longer as popular as they once were.

Why couldnt both sides have agreed to extend the last CBA for another YEAR while these lawsuits continue?? Like DUH, it was working and we could have football like we’ve had for 20 plus years. This crap is like listening to your twin boys fight about who gets the remote first. Let’s Play some FOOTBALL!!

Thoughts?

The Supreme Court said that the NFL is NOT one entity for all circumstances. However, in that ruling which was the an apparel licensing case the Supreme Court apparently were anticipating this situation and added language in their ruling which had no relevance to the American Needle case and stated that while they denied the league’s claim that they are universally one business they noted that there are instances that sports leagues would need to function as one business (as I am almost certain they cited rules to ensure competitive balance). The language of that ruling has been published here more than once. But the question is to what extent would the NFL be able to function as one business while dealing players? Certainly they don’t agree 100% with Kessler, but unless and until this case gets in front of the Justices there is no way of knowing if the agree 10% or 90% (do they rule a salary cap legal and transistion tags illegal?)

i want free agency really bad so my team can make a trade that we desperatley need to make b4 the draft. but i know its better for football in the long run if owners win this battle
——————————————–
You owner backers are really pathetic. Really really pathetic. Every team in this league is making millions of dollars. Truth of the matter is this is not the NBA where by some estimates as much as 30-50% of the teams are losing money annually. The NFL makes money hand over fist. This horrible system that the NFL operates some how produced multiple teams worth over a billion dollars. A small market team such as Green Bay has been able to turn a profit in one of the worse economic periods in decades. The Giants/Jets and Cowboys have built multi-billion dollar stadiums (Partially subsidized by the tax payers of course)…….Who the invests a billion dollars in something that they claim is losing money year after year?

You owner backers who like to go on these boards and somehow think you’re supporting your team by licking the owners boots. I really don’t understand it. The union’s job is to look after the players because as we’ve already seen the owners don’t care about anything but profits and some fans don’t care about their financial/physical well being just as long as they get their precious football game so I 100% understand why this union (or any union) would balk at giving up $1billion.

I guess as long as your favorite owner gets even more filthy rich then he already is you somehow will remain happy.

I think there will be a full season this year. The players have no interest in missing any game checks! And several have confirmed. The lawsuit and injunction request are aimed at allowing the players to resist agreeing to the owners’ terms in a new CBA while still collecting paychecks. So, if this lockout is still in place in July and the regular season and thus game checks are at risk, expect the players to abandon the legal strategy and sign a new CBA to prevent them from actual missing any game checks. And of course if an injunction is granted to lift the lockout before July then no games are ever in jeopardy. I am 99% confident that players are committed to not missing any games, either the courts will give them what they want or they will go back to the NFL hat-in-hand and make what ever concessions are necessary to get a deal done before any regular season games are missed.

The granting of an injunction without a stay would not legally “force” the owners to open their books, so perhaps I could have phrased it differently. What it would do, though, is significantly weaken the owners negotiating position, leaving them with little recourse other then to play ball and come to the table looking to make a fair deal.

The league and the owners have been in this situation before in the early 90′s. They actually had 3 seasons where there was no CBA in place. The rules that were in place from the previous CBA year were enforced until a new labor agreement was reached. That was enacted following a ruling in favor of the players. A similar ruling here from judge Nelson would mean business could continue as usual.

This is the only outcome right now that would save both the offseason and the entire regular season. I do agree it is unlikely, but one can hope.

Given the growth of the league over the last few years, it is hard to imagine that anyone would not agree that the last CBA was “fair” for both sides, or that there could possibly be rational justification for more “investment” capital to accelerate growth, no less justification to limit one side’s total take rather then maintaining a percentage split of revenues. Remember, the players would take the last CBA again right now.

Oh well.

I don’t think Kessler will ultimately get his way. While Kessler may genuinely believe in the merits of the anti-trust case filed against the league, the players certainly do not. The players only went along with this course of action because it was sold to them as their best maneuver to gain leverage. Also there are reports that “mid-tier” players are trying to intervene in the lawsuit and the assumption is that while they don’t want to derail the lawsuit (and the leverage it might garner) they want to ensure that Kessler does not get his way. What would make this entire case even more interesting than it already is if the players win and the owners don’t agree to a settlement like they did before and the players are stuck with Kessler’s view and no rules governing player movement. And then the question becomes do the players reform the union and end up right back where they were at the beginning of March? The owners keep saying that the only way this gets resolved is through negotiations not in the courtroom, the message whether they follow through or not is that no matter how the courts rule we are not going to settle this case like we did before and you will have to come back to the negotiating table unless you want Kessler’s NFL with no rules (meaning no salary floor, no minimum salaries, and no guaranteed percentage of revenues). However, it is doubtful it comes to that because I don’t think either side is interested in a long legal battle, both sides view this as a short-term leverage play. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already said that sports leagues can act as one entity and coordinate certain activities to ensure competitive balance which would not violate anti-trust laws, so if this were to play out fully in the courts I don’t think Kessler would get his way, maybe some of what he wants but based on the language in American Needle case the Supreme Court does not share Kessler’s view of what sports leagues should look like.

i want free agency really bad so my team can make a trade that we desperatley need to make b4 the draft. but i know its better for football in the long run if owners win this battle

A stay would keep the status quo which would mean no business at all involving players which would include free agency.

Marv,

You nailed it.

airraid77,

You are correct the implications of this case are far greater than just the NFL and in fact probably affect other sports leagues more than the NFL. This is why I think if the league does lose at the trial level, the Supreme Court would take the case.