Skip to content

Report: Judge Nelson lifts lockout

NFL Lockout Football AP

As expected, a ruling on the players’ motion to lift the lockout came Monday.

As expected, the ruling favors the players.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Judge Nelson has issued a ruling in favor of the players.  The NFL reportedly will seek an immediate stay of the implementation of the decision.

If the stay is granted, the lockout would not be lifted until, at the earliest, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling in the case.  The players surely would request expedited consideration of the appeal.

If Judge Nelson refuses to grant the stay, the NFL surely would seek a stay from the appeals court.

If neither court gives the league the stay, the doors will be forced open, soon.

In the short term, it’s good news for the fans.  If the ruling stands, the season will occur as scheduled.  And maybe folks will even give a crap about the draft.

Meanwhile, if the ruling stands the NFL will at some point have to come up with rules for 2011 regarding free agency and the salary cap, if any.  Those rules likely would then be challenged by the players as antitrust violations.

All that said, there could be important exceptions and details and nuances in Judge Nelson’s written ruling.  We’re in the process of getting our hands on it.  We’ll then break it all down in order to best understand why the decision was reached, whether it will be susceptible to appeal, and what it all means to you (and us), the fans of football.

Permalink 100 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
100 Responses to “Report: Judge Nelson lifts lockout”
  1. nepatriots128154 says: Apr 25, 2011 5:56 PM

    Is this good news or bad news for the fans?

  2. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Apr 25, 2011 5:56 PM

    Hopefully, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will immediately stay U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson’s order. Looking ahead, I’d like to see the appellate court consider, among other things, the question of whether a monetary award can equitably compensate NFL players for any “harm” suffered for the period prior to the opening of training camp, if not beyond. If the court answers affirmatively, then perhaps that may be sufficient grounds to overturn Judge Nelson’s ruling. After all, any harm that can be remedied through cash compensation would seemingly run counter to a finding of irreparable harm, which is required for an order granting preliminary injunctive relief to lift the player lockout.

    Now we can expect to suffer through press conferences and interviews about how today’s ruling is a win for “our fans who dig our game.” In reality, only a new—and fair—CBA will translate into a win for NFL fans, as well as the parties to this labor dispute.

  3. upperdecker19 says: Apr 25, 2011 5:56 PM

    I may become interested in this week’s draft afterall.

  4. mataug says: Apr 25, 2011 5:57 PM

    yay or nay ?

  5. thephantomstranger says: Apr 25, 2011 5:58 PM

    All this will do is delay an agreement. If this decision holds up, the players’ lawyers could feel empowered to go for it all and ruin the game.

  6. broncobeta says: Apr 25, 2011 5:58 PM

    Bittersweet.

    All I know is that I will never look at the players the same again. At least I know to save money on jerseys.

  7. Deb says: Apr 25, 2011 5:59 PM

    Great … the NFL seeks a stay before I can get from Ya to hoo :(

  8. mizzouram says: Apr 25, 2011 6:00 PM

    BOOYAH!

  9. ttommytom says: Apr 25, 2011 6:00 PM

    I mis-read that. I thought it said “Judge Nelson’s Mock Draft is Out”.

    Which would be more interesting than more legaleze.

  10. cdjones34 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:00 PM

    This is what I have been waiting for since the SB!! Does the NFL appeal act immediately or do they have to go through the courts so there could be a few days of free agency??? Please say we get som etrading in before the draft and some free agency PLEASE!!!

  11. ar1888 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:01 PM

    Who cares? I want a new CBA.

  12. jimmysee says: Apr 25, 2011 6:01 PM

    We support organized labor in the NFL .. and in Wisconsin.

  13. wawa33 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:01 PM

    All this means is more chaos…this will backfire on the greedy players and the moron owners.

  14. krisko says: Apr 25, 2011 6:04 PM

    I loved Judd Nelson in The Breakfast Club, great movie.

  15. galvestontexans says: Apr 25, 2011 6:05 PM

    I wish this could get out of the courts and the 2 sides would just sit down and get a deal done

  16. kom2k10 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:07 PM

    I can’t stand the players… when they feel they’re getting a bad deal, they go on strike because they have a right to. When the Owners feel like they’re getting a bad deal, they opt to lock out the players.

    This decertification is a complete sham and I hope these players get everything they’re asking for… No salary cap. That means the Mannings, Brady, and Brees’s of the league will make $40 million / year. And all the other players will make like $100,000 for the year… Way to go players… keep following your moronic money and power hungry “union leader” into a sinkhole that may never be reversible…

  17. vikescry1 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:07 PM

    either way this in not over and until a new cba is sign they are just delaying the process. they (nfl and nflpa) need to sit down and get this done. i’m tired of them just trying to see who can out do each other. really it’s been long enough, us fans deserve your respect for the money we spend.

  18. fin72 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:07 PM

    All this means is more chaos…this will backfire on the greedy players and the moron owners.

    _________________________________

    I think you meant to say the moron players and the greedy owners…

  19. toiletking says: Apr 25, 2011 6:09 PM

    This needs to end here. The greedy owners have taken this farce far enough. The players are willing to take a pay cut so the owners can buy a couple of extra yachts…just not enough so they can buy spaceships.

    Let’s just end this here so we can all have football!

  20. waxthat says: Apr 25, 2011 6:10 PM

    Frankly, tired of seeing goodell laughing on the sidewalk everyday walking up for mediation. Cut the BS in front of the media. Needs to show he’s serious, effin goober. Good for the players!

  21. toiletking says: Apr 25, 2011 6:10 PM

    Only a complete retard would compare this situation to wisconsin. Those teachers make like 30 grand a year and have families to feed.

  22. zimaman says: Apr 25, 2011 6:11 PM

    Judge Nelson is full of sheott

  23. dagnon13 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:11 PM

    Can anyone explain to me why it is legal for a union to strike, and force the business to shut down and lose money, but it is illegal for the same business to shut it’s doors and cause the employee’s to lose money / their jobs?

  24. adsbad28 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:12 PM

    now all we need is PFT to lock out jimmysmith from this website!!!!!!

  25. dapell says: Apr 25, 2011 6:12 PM

    The decertification is a complete sham. Any Judge who refuses to see that is stupid or has a political agenda. No surprise though, Doty was in the NFLPA’s pocket. There’s a reason they always choose this court to sue the owners.

  26. vikescry1 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:12 PM

    you know this has gotten way worse than favre’s tractor watch…. or has it?

  27. footballfanatic3431 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:14 PM

    Although it was expected, I’m still extremely disappointed. Any momentum for the players is not a good thing.

    I’m 100% for the guys that want free agency and a draft.

    I hope the 8th circuit screws the players big time.

  28. lt2369 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:14 PM

    Any word on what rules she proposes the league operate under without a CBA that would not leave the league open to further anti-trust issues?

  29. glen1904 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:14 PM

    lift the lockout and get a new CBA!!!!
    now we wont here the owners and Baddell saying “we need to get back to negotiation, that’s is how this will be settled, not through litigation” proving once again they are full of sheet.

  30. dontcallmepete says: Apr 25, 2011 6:15 PM

    Again the players aren’t asking for anything so it’s foolish to call them greedy. Anyone who does so in face of all evidence is simply intentionally clouding the issue. Owners will make another mistake in attempting to appeal because that would open them up to discovery which means opening the books.

    They don’t want to do that cause there’s tax money to get for new stadiums.

  31. neilanblomi says: Apr 25, 2011 6:15 PM

    So wait you people want the judge to rule a stay so the owners can cancel football again?

  32. joey49er says: Apr 25, 2011 6:15 PM

    unions is the downfall of the u.s…im 5 minutes away from the old gm plant in ohio.. gm employees never thought that gm would ever shut down but it did!!!
    they was making 20-35 an hour and most did not even have a high school diploma.. who want a buisness that employes make the decisions!!! unions had their day but its over soon

  33. bukes111 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:16 PM

    thephantomstranger says:

    “All this will do is delay an agreement. If this decision holds up, the players’ lawyers could feel empowered to go for it all and ruin the game.”

    ________________________________
    It may empower the players but may also make the owners come down on there demans. If you’re looking for both sides to come to an agreement, this is a good day. The faster the courts rule on this stuff, there is a clearer picture on who has what leverage. And that makes this thing easier to negotiate. I just want the court rulings out of the way so both sides can just negotiate.

  34. bigbigodnarb says: Apr 25, 2011 6:16 PM

    Lol @ the idiots who want a stay. If the 8th Cir. doesn’t stay the ruling then that guarantees NFL football next yr.

  35. jleimer says: Apr 25, 2011 6:17 PM

    I really think the anarchy in the almighty NFL will last quite a while thus causing American football fans to watch some Canadian Football eh?

  36. smacklayer says: Apr 25, 2011 6:17 PM

    Does that mean there is a union again? Does that mean the season is back on under the old CBA? But if there is no union how can there be a CBA?

    Is Peyton Manning now an unrestricted free agent? Are any of the tenders and tags enforceable?

    MF you need to clarify this stuff.

  37. footballfan292 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:18 PM

    The NFL is getting ROUTED In the courts. First the Needle case where they lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court; then the lockout TV money was a loss; now this.

    The courts are obviously not on the owner’s side.

  38. tommyf15 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:19 PM

    wawa33 says:
    Apr 25, 2011 6:01 PM
    All this means is more chaos…this will backfire on the greedy players and the moron owners.

    The owners opting out of the CBA and their lockout has backfired on them.

    I know most posters here are radically anti-player and pro-owner, which is certainly their right. But make no mistake, this is a HUGE win for the NFLPA. The owners had a great thing going for themselves and they blew it.

  39. duanethomas says: Apr 25, 2011 6:19 PM

    Players 2 Owners 0

    Next win for players Eight Circuit.

    Remember thumbs down pro-player…LOL!

  40. skoobyfl says: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM

    Translated: We get to hear about more legal moves versus just splitting the extra dough the NFL brings in every year.

  41. mayfieldroadboy says: Apr 25, 2011 6:21 PM

    @Deb
    Your pro-union march can now begin around your kitchen table. Your disdain for NFL ownership allows me to believe that you don’t like the current way football is structured and played. As a devoted football fan, which you appear to be, I am puzzled by your alliance with the players. I think you don’t like men, especially males who have power and authority. You seem to be upholding the “little man” because it makes you feel more authoritative and powerful, yet you don’t realize these “little men” whom you support are, in reality, more powerful and wealthier than you. And, as a feather in your cap, they certainly are not as intelligent as you.

  42. meatshalom46 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:21 PM

    Does this mean Peyton is a FREE AGENT????

  43. patriotsdefense says: Apr 25, 2011 6:22 PM

    does she have the balls to go along with that middle name?

  44. cappa662 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:22 PM

    Thumbs up for football!!!!!!!!

  45. buffalohogan says: Apr 25, 2011 6:23 PM

    This is bad. I don’t want to give the players any sense of hope i want them to drop this no draft/no min salary, etc BS and agree to a new CBA.

    Remember NFL fans, the players are fighting to get rid of the CBA the owners want it.

    NO CBA is bad for fans.
    Players side = bad for fans.

  46. thereisalwaysnextyear says: Apr 25, 2011 6:24 PM

    That’s it? No more insight than this? What could/does this mean? What happens if it’s upheld? With all the “crap” posts here during the lockout, one would think PFT could muster something better than this. ORIGINAL content and guidance to us laypeople about what it could mean. After all, PFT is headed by a lawyer right?

  47. sterilizecromartie says: Apr 25, 2011 6:28 PM

    “And maybe folks will even give a crap about the draft.”
    ———-
    Still beating that drum, eh? Any die-hard fan cares about this draft just as much as any draft. Whatever sources (probably your ONLY source, Peter King) are telling you that interest in the draft is low, they are wrong.

  48. jimr10 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:39 PM

    tommyf15

    i did not think there was a union. they decertified. that is what is so amazing about the ruling. why is anyone surprised at a left wing liberal judge who makes the law instead of interpreting.

  49. fancyleague says: Apr 25, 2011 6:41 PM

    The players should’ve been negotiating with the TV networks instead of negotiating with the owners. I can cheer for the new Pittsburgh Ironheads in black and gold just as easily as the Steelers. I’m sure Ben could throw freaking pick-sixes in the Awesome Bowl just as easily as in Super Bowl.

    The only thing that matters in this argument is that the players own 100% of the talent that the fans show up to watch during the games. The league, on the other hand, owns 100% of the laundry the players wear during the games. George Carlin once said the only thing that mattered in sports was the players. George was right.

  50. dontcallmepete says: Apr 25, 2011 6:41 PM

    unions is the downfall of the u.s…im 5 minutes away from the old gm plant in ohio.. gm employees never thought that gm would ever shut down but it did!!!
    they was making 20-35 an hour and most did not even have a high school diploma.. who want a buisness that employes make the decisions!!! unions had their day but its over soon
    ————————————–

    Yeah we just need Toyota to start making football players on the assembly line. Hey unions didn’t kill the auto industry. Detroit stopped making cars that Americans purchased in great numbers.

  51. pixelito says: Apr 25, 2011 6:42 PM

    Only the pitifully ignorant would side with Owners over players…. Some of us actually have brains.

  52. redsghost says: Apr 25, 2011 6:43 PM

    Man, is this bitch on the take like Doty? Nice to see she’s as retarded as she is ugly.
    The one poster had it right- moronic owners, greedy players. I read an article today from some eldery gentleman and he was talking about the Cubs screwing up a play. He said “well, the millionaire 2nd baseman overthrew the ball to the millionaire 1st baseman and the millionaire base runner scored.
    I really do hope that the owners do something drastic. Apply for Chapter 13. Close the business completely! I don’t NEED football this much! Send the players back to the hood, and within a year half of them will be dealing.
    I am curious though if there is a watchdog keeping an eye on “professionals” who seem to back EVERYTHING the players want! Do they have offshore accounts? In their spouses name? Cousins?
    I really think Doty and this bitch are on the take from the players or will be compensated at a future time.

  53. stevez51 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:44 PM

    Yes….higher ticket prices, higher NFL package, higher cable costs. We are heading for the haves and have nots. If you don’t think this will ruin the game, look at baseball. The Bengals will field a team of college non drafted free agents and a high priced QB. They will become the Marlins. The Cowboys amd Redskins will be the Yankees/Red Sox.

  54. tomcous says: Apr 25, 2011 6:45 PM

    There should also be a way to have a continuation of the Court Ordered Mediation.

    Get the parties to the table to get a deal done.

    The Lockout is a sham …
    … only done for leverage.
    The De-certification is a sham …
    … only done for leverage.
    Reverse them both …
    … for leverage to force the parties to negotiate.

    Get both parties in a room, excluding lawyers or better yet, have the lawyers in the room with gag order on them …

  55. akismet-4c66e7ff9489afb8e835432ff3bff403 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:46 PM

    I tend to side with the players. But I have no idea who’s right, really. It’s too complicated for my little ol’ brain.

  56. puntpasskick says: Apr 25, 2011 6:49 PM

    fin72 says:
    Apr 25, 2011 6:07 PM

    I think you meant to say the moron players and the greedy owners…

    _________________________________

    @ fin72…

    The facts don’t matter to PFT posters, even after I outlined the events of the week of March 11th, and explained why the players rejected the owners “last effort” proposal and how the fans were duped into believing that the NFLPA turned down a “good” offer…

    The players are hated because they make six, seven, and sometimes eight figures playing a game, so it’s only natural for average joes to be jealous…

    As another guy eluded to, Kessler could convince DeMaurice Smith to go all the way and blow up the financial structure and parity that the NFL had, and what the fans love about the sport…

  57. eagles7to10 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:50 PM

    So can we now trade kolb?

  58. bleedblue18 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:53 PM

    Good for Judge Nelson.
    Greedy owners, opted out of the CBA early that they agreed to with the players in 2006 and created this mess. Players came out a year ago and said they and were willing to resign the current deal.

  59. dontcallmepete says: Apr 25, 2011 6:54 PM

    Can anyone explain to me why it is legal for a union to strike, and force the business to shut down and lose money, but it is illegal for the same business to shut it’s doors and cause the employee’s to lose money / their jobs?
    ———————————————-
    It’s legal to use a lockout as a bargaining tool. Judge Doty reaffirmed this in the TV rights case. What you can’t do is set the conditions favoring you in an impasse and then declare an impasse.

  60. wetpaperbag2 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:56 PM

    joey49er says: Apr 25, 2011 6:15 PM

    unions is the downfall of the u.s…im 5 minutes away from the old gm plant in ohio.. gm employees never thought that gm would ever shut down but it did!!!
    they was making 20-35 an hour and most did not even have a high school diploma.. who want a buisness that employes make the decisions!!! unions had their day but its over soon
    ————————-

    WHO doesn’t have a high school diploma?

  61. dontcallmepete says: Apr 25, 2011 6:57 PM

    I’m 100% for the guys that want free agency and a draft
    —————————
    HILARIOUS! Free agency is a right won in an antitrust suit against the league BY THE PLAYERS and it is the players who agreed in negotiation to the salary cap.

  62. brambo67 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:59 PM

    thephantomstranger says: Apr 25, 2011 5:58 PM

    All this will do is delay an agreement. If this decision holds up, the players’ lawyers could feel empowered to go for it all and ruin the game.

    _________________________________________

    The ruling makes clear that the players need to understand that without a Union they are free to negotiate their own contracts.

    In other words it is making it clear that under the ruling minimum salaries are in breech of anti-trust legislation.

    This is the beginning of the end.
    Kessler and Smith have made Brees/Brady/Manning very wealthy and a lot of players much less so.

  63. furious724 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:01 PM

    There are some really clueless people out there. I keep reading people saying the players are “On
    Strike,” they are “Greedy,” blah blah blah.

    These fools are siding with the owners. Let’s make sure we understand:

    The owners opted out of the CBA…NOT THE PLAYERS.

    The owners asked for more money…NOT THE PLAYERS.

    The owners did the lockout….NOT THE PLAYERS.

    The players were happy with the current deal, and were playing through the contract. The owners wanted to get more money, asking the players to take a pay cut (with no reason why other than, “Trust Us.”)

    Now who are the GREEDY ONES that started all this mess????

  64. bronco1st says: Apr 25, 2011 7:02 PM

    Yeaaaa!

  65. vikescry1 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:02 PM

    both sides are handling this poorly. nuff said

  66. wetpaperbag2 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:05 PM

    dagnon13 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:11 PM

    Can anyone explain to me why it is legal for a union to strike, and force the business to shut down and lose money, but it is illegal for the same business to shut it’s doors and cause the employee’s to lose money / their jobs?
    ———————————

    Sure…I can. It’s called “an employer can ALWAYS lay you off.”

    Also, remember…an employer can CHOOSE whether or not to employ union labor. It’s refered to as “at will” employment. It means an employer can fire you “at will.” I worked for one such employer for 11 years. It was a great place to work (because of the mix of different people working there) despite the less than average wages.

    Union workers in the private sector provide a certain job skill that typically cannot be found by the random joe blow off the street…typically. The only problem I have with unions is them working at the DMV. Might as well employ vampires, zombies, and Oscar the Grouch in their positions. The customer service is about the same.

  67. lbcoach34 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:05 PM

    Resume OTA’s with actual coaches…

    Colt McCoy better bring everyone back to Cleveland – so they can get some playbooks while they can…in fact – there’s real good chance workouts and mini-camps are already underway…

    Coaches are very very organized and prepared

  68. brambo67 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:06 PM

    lt2369 says: Apr 25, 2011 6:14 PM

    Any word on what rules she proposes the league operate under without a CBA that would not leave the league open to further anti-trust issues?

    ____________________________________________

    The ruling made it clear.
    There is no case under which the NFL can act as a single entity and be free from anti-trust “issues”.

    By going the de-certification route, the players have effectively accepted that their lawyers are going to break apart the NFL from creating another CBA unless it’s in the players best interests.

    Problem is, given the fact that the courts are (legitimately) on the players side in terms of the law, its not going to help the NFL as a body and thus the players.

    I’d like the owners to say, “fine, we’ll accept whats being said.”
    Because if they did, it would mean the immediate renegotiation of hundreds of NFL contracts with most being for lesser amounts than at the moment. Most players would lose benefits and bonuses.

    Then what happens?
    Re-certification?
    Can’t happen.

  69. vahawker says: Apr 25, 2011 7:11 PM

    Hope the owners make draconian rules that the players will HATE. Extra mandatory work outs, Immediate full year suspensions for any arrests, EVERY player subjected to weekly urine drug tests and monthly HGH tests, no per diems, coach flights, just make their lives miserable.

  70. nineroutsider says: Apr 25, 2011 7:14 PM

    If the league loses its ‘Stay’ on appeal, then the season will go on as normal, but they will have to agree to apply the old CBA rules to this year. Then the sides can work on a new CBA, but the owners will lose the leverage of not paying the players while they work on the new deal. That is my understanding of the ruling.

    This ruling will not cause the players to ‘go for it all’ as this ruling was expected. They just want to get paid while they work on the new deal and the owners wanted to not pay them so that they had more leverage. The ruling, if it holds, is the best outcome for fans that wanted a normal NFL season and off-season this year.

    There will be a new CBA and this probably actually helps that cause. The owners now realize that they can’t substantially lower player pay, but nice try. They now need to sit down and put together a serious proposal so that actual negotiations can commence. The owners should move quick…just my advice.

  71. goombar2 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:20 PM

    I read an article claiming if the 8th didn’t grant a stay or reversal the old rules of the last CBA would “probably” be enforced.

    Heck, the players, before decertification were willing to play under those rules. The problem is is that the 8th circuit is pro-business… But there’s a catch, this is antitrust and that really clouds the water and changes things. What could be a pretty conservative jury could really flip.

    True conservative jurists, when put in this predicament, don’t tend to want to make law and the laws are pretty cut and dry with reference to antitrust. Seems like way too big a gamble in the loss of fans if you go to a hold out, the uncertainty with sponsors, and the overall black eye.

    The owners need to come to the table and try to negotiate. Either way at this point the books are being opened if they want to continue, so if that was a sticking point – better to settle now than latter.

  72. thetooloftools says: Apr 25, 2011 7:20 PM

    I dont care what happens until they kick a ball on opening day. If there is no opening game, I will not care.
    This is all posturing.
    Like hookers fighting for a street corner.

  73. isaeus says: Apr 25, 2011 7:20 PM

    Couldn’t have said it better, tommyf15.

    It’s hysterical to listen to all the people fervently defending their owners and the league. It is like people just completely missed the fact that the owners opted out of the current agreement, causing this situation. Does everyone realize the owners locked out the players, and not vice versa?

    The players were content under the last CBA. The reason Kessler, Quinn and the NFLPA legal team are threatening to go after the other areas so hard (draft, FA, etc) is not because they would not want those things in a new CBA; it is to create more leverage and force a new agreement.

    The fact that the owners tried to negotiate a deal that fixed the amount of money the players get in total take is a major departure from the current system of shared profits and shared risk. It was an outrageous attempt by them to fix their costs so they could enjoy all of the top line growth that they anticipate over the next few years. I hope they lose big due to their greed.

    For the record, I could care less what players make, but it is obvious to me who is at fault for causing this problem.

  74. redsghost says: Apr 25, 2011 7:21 PM

    Brambo, I’m actually hoping the league goes under DUE to this ruling that the PLAYERS wanted. I hope they lose health insurance, life ins., bonuses, retirement etc…
    I hope the owners install a “minimum wage” of a $1000.00 per game. I mean they COULD get away with playing these greedy bums the actual minimum wage of (?) $ 8.00 per hour? I really don’t know what the federal minimum is.
    The players had it nice. Greed broke the game. Let the NFL close it’s doors and start a New League with OTHER players. Then, watch these friggin babies cry! Kind’a hard to attract the hotties or pay for their posse on Minimum wage.

  75. chapnastier says: Apr 25, 2011 7:22 PM

    Liberal judges, sad, sad sad.

  76. melikefootball says: Apr 25, 2011 7:22 PM

    Broncobeta—— totaly agree done buying anyhting with a players name associated with. If there is no union, no lockout allowed, then owners should be weeding out and refusing to pay thes new players all this money. How nice that would be.

  77. goombar2 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:25 PM

    brambo, that makes no sense… What are you even talking about? They can reform a union at any time given an acceptable CBA. A CBA basically says, it’s cool this is a monopoly and we agree to it because compensation is adequate for the services.

    The players said before all this they’d agree to same CBA, so if they didn’t agree to the same rules, then the owners would have their “sham” case.

  78. davikes says: Apr 25, 2011 7:27 PM

    Lots of questions here, few answers. 1) If the owners can’t work together because they would violate anti-trust law, does that mean that TV revenue would no longer be split evenly among the teams, and instead be based on ratings or market area numbers? 2) If they players don’t have a union because they decertified two weeks ago, why was the judge encouraging negotiations? 3) Will we now have 1500 or so individual contracts? 4) How would the players ever arrive at a CBA without a union? Man what a mess. But I hope the ruling stands because at least we know they will be playing this fall.

  79. nflfan101 says: Apr 25, 2011 7:28 PM

    The owners need to call a press conference and say:

    “We respect the court’s ruling. As of right now, the draft is called off, teams can negotiate with whoever they want, teams can pay as much or as little as they desire, and teams can employ as many or as few players as suits their purpose. There are no longer restricted or unrestricted free agents.”

  80. spharrgcs says: Apr 25, 2011 7:34 PM

    And 10 years later, ESPN Films brings you “LIFTED-How Judge Nelson singlehandedly ended the 2011 NFL lockout and saved the great sport from certain demise.” Starring Jessica Lange as Judge Nelson.

  81. tednancy says: Apr 25, 2011 7:49 PM

    How, pray tell, is this a “good thing for fans?” In order to have a 2011 season there must be some rules in place, and since the union will challenge any such rules as violations of antitrust laws, the NFL as we know it will be utterly destroyed. That’s “good?”

    This is a TERRIBLE THING FOR FANS of the NFL. No matter what Judge Nelson claims. She may have good intentions, but she just opened the door wide open for De Smith, Kessler and the rest of the union goons to destroy the NFL as we know and love it.

  82. Deb says: Apr 25, 2011 8:24 PM

    chapnastier says:

    Liberal judges, sad, sad sad.

    ——————————–

    Awwww, chap … you’re so cute when you’re predictable ;)

  83. greenbleeder says: Apr 25, 2011 8:30 PM

    QUICK! Trade Kevin Kolb!!!

  84. CowboyErik says: Apr 25, 2011 8:36 PM

    People on here need to remember, the OWNERS are the RATS in this; they opted out of the CBA agreement; they are the CARTEL owners, that run around, extorting FREE STADIUMS out of cities, leaving SCHOOL SYSTEMS like CINCINNATI in RUINS, then demanding an additional 35million from the city/schools over TEN years when the OWNERS take a BILLION off the TOP for “stadium construcion”, then the players get 60% of the pie and the TEAM SUCKS ETERNALLY. We need RELAGATION in the NFL to bring up the STANDARD of FOOTBALL!

  85. vahawker says: Apr 25, 2011 8:50 PM

    nineroutsider… didn’t notice the [/sarcasm] at the end of your post, so must assume you were serious. but, SERIOUSLY?!?! The owners DID make a proposal that seemed to address many of the “stated” concerns of the players. DeIdiot and his Merry Band of Morons walked away without giving it a serious look or ANY consideration.

    Where did you get the idea the owners were trying to LOWER the players pay? They may have wanted to change FUTURE financial compensation as it relates to how revenues are split, which is by no means is the same as saying they were trying to LOWER pay unless you want to argue that a rookie wage scale is lowering rookie’s pay, but how do lower someone’s pay who has never been paid and has no contract to be paid?

  86. locutus says: Apr 25, 2011 9:01 PM

    Yeah we just need Toyota to start making football players on the assembly line. Hey unions didn’t kill the auto industry. Detroit stopped making cars that Americans purchased in great numbers.

    ———————————————–

    Another gem by Pete. Unions are a cancer for society, in this day and age. They serve no purpose but to destroy the business they are in. Auto, Telecom, NBA, MLB, and now our beloved NFL. Unionism is like Liberalism, it never knows where to stop. Foreign automakers destroyed the US makers due to better cars and lower prices. US Unions made sure the workers at GM just got fat. They didn’t care what kind of cars they made.

  87. Deb says: Apr 25, 2011 9:02 PM

    mayfieldroadboy says:

    @Deb
    Your pro-union march can now begin around your kitchen table. Your disdain for NFL ownership allows me to believe that you don’t like the current way football is structured and played. As a devoted football fan, which you appear to be, I am puzzled by your alliance with the players. I think you don’t like men, especially males who have power and authority. You seem to be upholding the “little man” because it makes you feel more authoritative and powerful, yet you don’t realize these “little men” whom you support are, in reality, more powerful and wealthier than you. And, as a feather in your cap, they certainly are not as intelligent as you.
    ———————————————–

    Another effort in pop psychology … sigh. You guys shouldn’t try so hard; I’m really straightforward about my thoughts and motives.

    While I support the right of workers to organize, I don’t blindly champion every move made by every union, I won’t be marching. And I won’t be cheering until a new CBA is signed. The last thing I want is for these antitrust suits to move forward or for the NFL to change how it operates.

    I don’t feel disdain for the owners as a group, though I do feel disdain for individual owners such as Little Danny Snyder, Jerry Jones, and that cheapskate Mike Brown. I’ve always loved the Rooneys and have a lot of respect for the way the Maras and Bob Kraft run their organizations. Having a realistic view of these businessmen, their goals, and their tactics shouldn’t be viewed as disdain.

    What you interpret as upholding “little men,” is championing the rights of the common person–a principle on which our nation was founded. Not that it’s any of your business, but I love men and am attracted to intelligence, quick wit, and self-confidence. Power, status, and ego aren’t my personal ambitions and I don’t value them in others. And I would never be interested in a man I could henpeck. A woman can still be all woman despite having brains and sass just as a man can be all man without having to beat his chest and roar.

    But thanks for your input :roll:

  88. tommyf15 says: Apr 25, 2011 9:03 PM

    jimr10 says:
    i did not think there was a union. they decertified. that is what is so amazing about the ruling. why is anyone surprised at a left wing liberal judge who makes the law instead of interpreting.

    You’re correct that I should have said “players” instead of “NFLPA”.

    Now…what law did Judge Nelson create? I’ll answer for you- she didn’t.

    The law is on the books that a group of owners can’t band together and lock out non-union employees.

    Don’t shoot the messenger here: I don’t think you guys understand how crazy things could get. How would you like to see the Dallas Cowboys sign their own deal with a network, and put the games on at 2:30 PM EST to lure eyeballs away from the other games?

    Does that sound crazy? Then let me point out that is EXACTLY what Notre Dame football and NBC have been doing for 20 years.

    If I were running the owner’s side, I’d ask the NFLPA for an offer and I’d accept it.

  89. locutus says: Apr 25, 2011 9:40 PM

    Deb says

    The last thing I want is for these antitrust suits to move forward or for the NFL to change how it operates.

    Yet you champion the side that will lead just that. The NFL will not be the NFL, just like the other leagues are mere shells of what they once were. Try again.

    What you interpret as upholding “little men,” is championing the rights of the common person–a principle on which our nation was founded.

    Unionism is not a principle our country was founded upon. These are not “common people” and their behavior, on and off the field, does not warrant championing. While the owners are greedy, they also take all the risks and the players are simply greedier. The asylum is not and should not be run by the inmates, literally and figuratively in the case of NFLers.

    For you to be so vehemently pro-union indicates you have an axe to grind. That ain’t pop psychology dear.

  90. Deb says: Apr 25, 2011 10:10 PM

    @locutus …

    I believe that the antitrust suits are a tactic like the lockout and decertification. Whatever the attorneys want, I don’t believe the players ever intended to dismantle the draft or free agency as it now exists. I believe listing the lockout will force the owners to capitulate and sign a new CBA, returning us to business as usual. That’s what I’ve been counting on and praying for.

    But it’s lovely that you can read my mind. :)

    I’m self-employed from a family that goes back generations as small farmers and self-employed small business people and professionals. Other than my grandfather briefly serving as a police officer before I was born, no one on either side of my family has ever worked in a union shop.

    But glad you know the axes I have to grind. :)

    I didn’t say our country was founded on unionism; said it was founded on championing the rights of the common person–and it was. Nor am I union-obsessed as you seem to be. I believe in the right of workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining and recognize that most of the positive labor laws we have in this country came from the efforts of organized labor. That does not mean I blindly support every union action or proposal, or that I fail to recognize some of the problems unions have created in our economy.

    And the “pop psychology” thing specifically referred to his bizarre ramblings about what he assumes I want in a man. You do get points for not going there … ROFL

  91. Deb says: Apr 25, 2011 10:13 PM

    @locutus …

    That was supposed to be “lifting the lockout,” not “listing the lockout.”

  92. childressrulz says: Apr 25, 2011 11:23 PM

    Go players. Love seeing the owners squirm. To all of the idiots who are pro-owner suck my d!(k. Thank god for Liberals!

  93. locutus says: Apr 26, 2011 7:55 AM

    Deb, maybe you are unaware, however your actions are different than your explanations. You may rationalize to all of us and think you have things compartmentalized, but your true feelings, namely being vehemently pro-NFL union, come through many times on here. There are reasons for your true beliefs that are yet unknown.

    As for brain dead losers such as “childressrulz”, he is your stereotypical GM worker.

  94. Deb says: Apr 26, 2011 11:56 AM

    @locutus …

    Oh! We’ve been miscommunicating. Sorry! I thought you were talking about unions in a generic sense–which many have been doing (wish they’d stick to the subject).

    Yes, I’m vehemently pro-NFLPA … although I do not support the endgame strategy Kessler and De Smith have mapped out. I don’t want No Rules Football, a change in free agency, or an end to the draft–and I don’t believe that’s what the rank and file players want either. In fact, I don’t believe most of them realized that was even on the table until recently. I never believed the owners would let things go as far as they have and am praying they will stop this and pull us back from the brink.

    I’m pro NFLPA both because I understand the issues in this labor dispute but also because I know my NFL history. The league was built on abusing its players from inception into the 1980s. Players I enjoyed watching as a child died from league abuses while owners prospered treating them with less care than they would prize racehorses. Some of the situations were inhuman. The players fought against tremendous odds to find their dignity as athletes, and despite the mega salaries of the privileged few, the owners still manage to hoodwink the majority in many ways … as they’ve been trying to do throughout this process.

  95. thephantomstranger says: Apr 26, 2011 11:57 AM

    Deb says:
    Not that it’s any of your business, but I love men and am attracted to intelligence, quick wit, and self-confidence.
    _____________________

    Sorry, Deb. I’m married.

  96. redsghost says: Apr 26, 2011 1:22 PM

    “childressrulz says:
    Apr 25, 2011 11:23 PM
    Go players. Love seeing the owners squirm. To all of the idiots who are pro-owner suck my d!(k. Thank god for Liberals!”

    And your the idiot who is pro-player? Secondly, you act like a pu$$y, write like a pu$$y, think like a pu$$sy and last I checked you don’t HAVE A D!CK if you’re a pu$$y.

    Your “Liberals” are in the midst of ruining this country and headed towards Socialism. Wait! Not a bad idea! The owners need to have a Socialistic League. $ 1000.00 per game for EVERYONE.
    Idiot.

  97. Deb says: Apr 26, 2011 2:48 PM

    @thephantomstranger …

    That’s too bad … nice quick-witted comment :)

  98. 3octaveFart says: Apr 26, 2011 4:12 PM

    chapnastier says: Apr 25, 2011 7:22 PM

    “Liberal judges, sad, sad sad.”

    Wow.

    What a shock. :shock:

    You caught me totally off guard.

    Really.

    You did.
    :roll:

  99. locutus says: Apr 26, 2011 9:41 PM

    Deb,

    The league was built on abusing its players from inception into the 1980s. Players I enjoyed watching as a child died from league abuses while owners prospered treating them with less care than they would prize racehorses. Some of the situations were inhuman. The players fought against tremendous odds to find their dignity as athletes, and despite the mega salaries of the privileged few, the owners still manage to hoodwink the majority in many ways

    What you say here is correct, and it coincides with how regular workers were treated prior to labor laws. However, it is a clear condemnation and what I have been saying in that unions, once required and served a purpose, are no longer necessary and only destroy the business they are involved in. No longer are players treated poorly and inhumanely. Now they only have themselves to blame for their own destruction. As well, what you do NOT want to happen will eventually happen as unionism, akin to liberalism, has no “end” until its host is dead. Just like parasitism.

    Btw, I like your comments in general, just hate your pro-union stance. :)

  100. Deb says: Apr 27, 2011 4:32 PM

    @locutus …

    Superstar athletes are no longer treated inhumanely. It’s still a brutal business, and college players are tremendously exploited. I don’t agree that unions serve their purpose, then are no longer necessary. The love of money is the root of all evil. That’s a fundamental principle. Remove the dam and the water will flood as it always did. Without checks and balances, businesses will immediately return to exploiting people as they always have done. In fact, they get around union and government intervention by outsourcing work to other countries that allow them to exploit and abuse workers at will.

    The problem with unions occurs when their leadership becomes corrupt with power and they exploit their own members for personal gain. Or when the unions refuse to acknowledge business realities and work with management for the good of all. The answer isn’t getting rid of unions anymore than it would be getting rid of management (in a capitalist society). The answer is rational compromise.

    I believe the now defunct CBA represented rational compromise, and don’t want to dissolve the NFL’s antitrust exemptions. But the union has to be certified and operating in order for those exemptions to be allowed. So these guys must find a compromise or everyone loses.

    Thanks for the positive words. It is nice when we can disagree but still be civil :)

Leave a Reply

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