Skip to content

League takes calculated risk in refusing to start 2011 league year

NFL Lockout Football AP

The ruling from Judge Nelson leaves no room for doubt.  “The lockout is enjoined,” she writes at the bottom of an 89-page ruling.

But the league has opted not to treat the lockout as being truly enjoined (in English, “over”) absent further guidance from Judge Nelson.  Lawyer David Boies told PFT Live that the NFL has decided to adhere to the status quo (i.e., a lockout) until Judge Nelson issues a more detailed ruling regarding the import of those four critical words — and until she rules on whether the practical consequences of those four words will be delayed while the NFL appeals the decision.

Clearly, the league has concerns about sticking with the “status quo.”  Otherwise, some of the teams wouldn’t have allowed the players to enter team facilities despite said “status quo.”  While the unexpected decision of the Giants to allow players to work out has been heralded by some as a sign of “class,” it could be that team management has opted to take the safest path possible in response to the order enjoining the lockout.

You know, the path that doesn’t involve a perp walk.

For any team that either didn’t let players in or refused to give them access to the weight room, a potentially significant risk has been assumed.  If Judge Nelson intends her 89-page ruling ending with “[t]he lockout is enjoined” to mean that the lockout doesn’t exist — in other words, that as of 12:01 a.m. on March 12, 2011, the lockout never happened — the response could be a finding that any team refusing to conduct business as usual is in violation of the Court order.

Boies explained that the league anticipates further guidance from the league.  There’s nothing in the 89-page ruling to suggest that further guidance is coming.  Instead, Judge Nelson wrote that the “lockout is enjoined,” which a reasonably prudent person could (and perhaps should) interpret as meaning that the lockout is over — and that the league should conduct itself accordingly.

Even though the players and the league have submitted competing orders with proposed language that elaborates on the impact of the ruling, it’s entirely possible that Judge Nelson believes no further elaboration is needed.  She has ended the lockout.  If the league fails to treat the lockout as over, the league does so at its own risk.

At this point, Judge Nelson’s reaction to the league’s clumsy half-measures isn’t known.  Soon, it will be.  And it could end up being trouble for the NFL.

Permalink 51 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
51 Responses to “League takes calculated risk in refusing to start 2011 league year”
  1. will12203 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:39 PM

    3rd Quarter the Players are up 16-0

  2. smacklayer says: Apr 26, 2011 4:41 PM

    MF, this is not a black and white issue. As the league lawyers have already stated they will follow the judge’s order. However she has put the league in a catch 22, to “resume” business as usually it would CLEARLY be a violation of anti-trust laws. Further, there is no union so what rules do they follow? Are you suggesting 32 separate businesses? Get real, they need some clarification and guidence and that is what Boise explained to you this morning.

  3. geefan1 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:46 PM

    I think the NFL should open for business with two-a-days I’m full pads daily from now until the start of a new 18 game season.

  4. holdthemayo123 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:48 PM

    I can’t imagine it would bode well for the NFL to essentially say “thanks for your opinion, but we’ll wait on this one.”

  5. danimalk82 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:48 PM

    Who gives a crap about any of this? I sure don’t. Wake me up when the draft is here.

  6. nahcouldntbethat says: Apr 26, 2011 4:50 PM

    The NFL is expecting the judge to elaborate on her ruling? What kind of idiots are making decisions for the NFL these days?

    They should open the doors, appeal the ruling and then deal with the effects of the appeal when it is ruled upon.

    The decision to ignore the ruling because they do not like how it is worded (apparently) is the strangest thing I’ve seen out of an organized entity of this size in response to a legal ruling against them.

  7. evpimp says: Apr 26, 2011 4:53 PM

    Fire Roger Goodell!

  8. quirtevans says: Apr 26, 2011 4:54 PM

    Again, you’ve got it right. I think the Giants’ decision was less about class and more about being conservative. The whole league should have taken a similar approach.

    And it isn’t very conservative, or careful, for the league office to be telling teams what they should or should not do, when they are barred by antitrust law from acting collectively.

    They are separate businesses, not one collective business. The Supreme Court said so. Now, if only we could get the owners to believe it ….

  9. zaggs says: Apr 26, 2011 4:56 PM

    Ending a lockout and beginning a league year are not the same process.

  10. fflnick says: Apr 26, 2011 4:56 PM

    By requiring more clarification in writing, the NFL potentially gets “ammunition” in the appeals they can use that Judge Nelson overstepped.

    Also the league needs verification under what “rules” they will operate under since CBA expired.
    Are they operating under the expired CBA rules or individually based labor rights.
    If they are no longer under the expired CBA, the draft would most likely be ruled illegal under antitrust law. No salary cap. No restrictive free agents. Everybody’s a free agent who does not have a contract.
    If they go forward with the draft without the protection of the expired CBA, they could be sued for damages and have to pay 3 times the amount of the judgement.
    Worst case scenario, draft could be cancelled or delayed.

  11. joshborden says: Apr 26, 2011 4:56 PM

    THIS IS GETTING OLD!……..If the lockout does continue into the season, at least let it be long enough to cut into half of the Cowboys 5-6 Nationally Televised Prime Time Games THIS YEAR!! THAT’S BULL****!!…6-10 LAST YEAR!

    Sorry…..I have tourettes…..

    Titans Fan

  12. southmo says: Apr 26, 2011 4:56 PM

    Welcome to the world of going nowhere fast.

  13. jebdamone says: Apr 26, 2011 4:57 PM

    it seems odd to me that the league owners were so unprepared for a court outcome that everyone had to see coming. i figured they would have at least had an appeal ready to file immediately under these circumstances. they are just digging themselves a bigger hole right now.

  14. footballpoetry says: Apr 26, 2011 4:58 PM

    Give me my damn football back.

  15. PurpleRaid18 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:58 PM

    NFL, it’s over. You lost. Let’s play some football.

  16. antneejay2 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:58 PM

    So Boies is claiming that 89 isn’t enough pages to clarify to him what the word “over” means. Lawyers are cute, aren’t they?

  17. bunjy96 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:59 PM

    The league can not be forced into a position so that no matter what they do it will be in violation of the the anti trust statute.

    That is in essence what the judge ruled.

    The best thing for the league right now is to cancel the season.

  18. andresthedragon1234 says: Apr 26, 2011 5:02 PM

    It’s 89 pages and the last words are “the lockout is enjoined”. How much more of a “detailed” explaination does the league need?

  19. pmars64 says: Apr 26, 2011 5:07 PM

    I hope the judge plays as hard a ball as the NFL is right now. Their in-your-face approach continues to smack of the arrogance with which the owners have conducted themselves from day 1, three years ago when they planned for the lock-out.

  20. fatelvis77 says: Apr 26, 2011 5:07 PM

    Now that you’ve looked up “enjoin” in the dictionary look up “contempt of court.”

  21. prmpft says: Apr 26, 2011 5:08 PM

    …The inmate’s are running the asylum…good times for all you Marxists…

    what’cha wanna bet that the “players” have no intention of assuming the risk of running the league – as long as there is free flow coming from the money udder, things are just fine and dandy for them…I almost wish the owners would just fold the tents and screw all of us…then let’s see how much the players could do to fix that!

  22. nflfan101 says: Apr 26, 2011 5:14 PM

    It is now time for the owners to take off the gloves. They have been begging to negotiate and D. Smith has told them repeatedly by his actions that the NFLPA/NFLPA* will not negotiate. The court has ignored any labor law which says that a sham decertification for a negotiation advantage is illegal.

    Now, it is time for the NFL to state the obvious and take action. The NFL needs to cancel the draft and immediately state that there are no rules for players. The teams can pay as little or as much as they wish, they can hire whoever they wish, and they can hire as many or as few players as they wish.

    If the NFL did that, most of the players would cry “foul” as their pay would be cut dramatically or they would even lose their jobs.

    For the owners, they could make up a lot of loss profit by having a very low payroll. They are not required to pay the players 60%. They can pay the players 25% or less.

  23. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 5:15 PM

    Well, given the dream team of lawyers the NFL has put together, it seems to be quite a stretch for them to say they don’t understand what the judge means when she rather bluntly states in the last line of her ruling that the lockout is enjoined. That’s about as plain and simple as legalese gets. I would laugh if she points that fact out when she rules on the request for a stay.

  24. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 5:19 PM

    If they go forward with the draft without the protection of the expired CBA, they could be sued for damages and have to pay 3 times the amount of the judgement.
    Worst case scenario, draft could be cancelled or delayed.
    _______________________
    No, it can’t be canceled. This draft was provided for under the last cba. It’s the last act of the cba, in fact, and is protected as an agreed upon activity that was collectively bargained into existence.

  25. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 5:25 PM

    bunjy96 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:59 PM

    The league can not be forced into a position so that no matter what they do it will be in violation of the the anti trust statute.

    That is in essence what the judge ruled.

    The best thing for the league right now is to cancel the season.
    _________________________
    They can’t cancel the season. The Judge’s order to end the lockout (unless overturned on appeal) means that the league will have to conduct business as they normally would. The only way around that would be to disband the NFL, and that will never happen as it would mean turning billion dollar assets (the teams themselves) into remarkably less valuable properties.

  26. pitch87mph says: Apr 26, 2011 5:25 PM

    Well if the judge gets her proverbial panties in a bunch over wanting clarification–perhaps she should seek another line of work. When does anything an attorney or judge say, actually mean what it says it means? It took 89 pages to write her legal opinion, but she can’t provide a little guidance on what they do next? What exactly are the owners supposed to do? In my opinion, given that she absolutely knew that any ruling would be appealed, she should have been prepared to immediately issue a stay, immediately deny a stay AND provide some kind of guidance for what “rules”, if any, apply (though maybe that’s outside her scope of authority–I don’t know. Seeing how she can force a private company to operate under conditions they find to be economically unsustainable and against their own interests, seems like the very least she could do is tell them exactly what they CAN do. Would it hurt to say something to the effect that she is aware the ruling may be appealed, and lets say she doesn’t stay the injunction, rule that the 2010 rules apply?) She’s clearly put the owners in an impossible situation. If they make any rules, the players have ammo for the anti-trust lawsuit. So she basically not only ruled in favor of the players on the injunction, she ALSO gave them a big assist to winning the NEXT part of the battle. BOO on her. Fine. Her ruling is what it is. But she’s basically trying to help the players WIN their case, without even hearing about the actual case itself (this ruling, as I understand, was simply about the legality of the lockout–not the merits of the overall lawsuit… but I may be mistaken). AWFUL, AWFUL ruling, imho. The decertification is a sham, and if the NFL brand is damaged as a result (draft goes away, competitive balance goes away, etc.) the PLAYERS and this judge’s misguided ruling will be the cause of it. Hopefully, at the very least, she stays the injunction. The reality is that the players (who lose workout bonuses) can seek relief later if they win on the merits of their case. Nobody is being irreparable harmed by the lockout at this juncture.

  27. southmo says: Apr 26, 2011 5:25 PM

    There won’t be any contempt of court. The ruling slapped an injuction on the lockout as the anti-trust suit proceeds. But Nelson’s ruling was in broad terms… “the lockout is enjoined”… and now the League and the Players Union have both submitted proposals as to the parameters the League should operate with in the meantime.

    She still will instruct the league based on those proposals, and may rule on the Stay very soon as well. The NFL is not taking a risk, but is simply getting the final details from the judge on how to operate as a result of the ruling.

    Nelson might criticize them, but contempt? Ain’t gonna happen. This is just court ruling procedure stuff.

  28. wasafan says: Apr 26, 2011 5:26 PM

    If each team is it’s own individual business as stated by a previous poster, then fine… All teams should immediately suspend all business operations, cancel the draft, and not resume normal operations until a CBA is in place. (As was discussed earlier in other blogs). If the union can decertify, the teams (Businesses) can suspend operations. That will force BOTH sides back to the table.

  29. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 5:35 PM

    “All teams should immediately suspend all business operations, cancel the draft, and not resume normal operations until a CBA is in place.”

    Wouldn’t they then lose their anti-trust exemption?

  30. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 5:38 PM

    pmars64 says: Apr 26, 2011 5:07 PM

    I hope the judge plays as hard a ball as the NFL is right now. Their in-your-face approach continues to smack of the arrogance with which the owners have conducted themselves from day 1, three years ago when they planned for the lock-out.
    _____________________
    And that is what truly boggles the mind. The NFL has lost case after case when it comes to anti-trust issues. They’ve lost anti-trust cases related to their own players, their suppliers, and (as far back as the USFL case) potential competitors. Every time an anti-trust case comes up, the league has either settled the case out of court or lost the case. Still, they go into each new case strutting and talking as if they were untouchable. How many times can they run full speed into a brick wall before they finally get the idea that proceeding carefully might be the better option?

    At the end of the day, this is all about getting leverage for the next cba, and I really don’t care which side ends up with what percentage of the revenue. When it comes to the legal proceedings, however, the law is simply against the owners when it comes to anti-trust issues. The only way they can win is if the appellate court rules that the players don’t have the right to dissolve their union, and I find it hard to believe that a conservative court will overturn the initial ruling to mandate that workers must unionize. Besides, Nelson’s ruling seems rather well put together to me. Even if the appellate justices personally disagree with her initial ruling, it’s hard to see where they would find reversible error. Again, they would have to claim that workers can’t walk away from their union, and that would definitely be making new case law that other unions would love to see.

  31. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 5:54 PM

    wasafan says: Apr 26, 2011 5:26 PM

    If each team is it’s own individual business as stated by a previous poster, then fine… All teams should immediately suspend all business operations, cancel the draft, and not resume normal operations until a CBA is in place. (As was discussed earlier in other blogs). If the union can decertify, the teams (Businesses) can suspend operations. That will force BOTH sides back to the table.
    ________________________
    Why is it so hard for some people to understand what’s going on here? We’re not talking about some small private businesses here. We’re talking about 32 companies working together to completely dominate a rather large market. That opens them up to anti-trust suits that can only be prevented by the anti-trust exemptions arising from a unionized labor force and an effective cba. This is why the league is so desperate to have any legal body declare that the union can’t dissolve. The owners’ best interests are served by the players being unionized.

    So, either they’re 32 teams colluding to control the market (bad) or the NFL is one company completely dominating the market. That’s actually worse, as it would mean the NFL was a monopoly, and under U.S. law monopolies must either be regulated by the government or split up. No one (outside of the other sports leagues perhaps) wants to see that happen. Either way, all the teams can’t just coincidentally decide not to sign any players or play any games. That wouldn’t even come close to passing an anti-trust laugh test, and would only result in the league having to pay the players triple the amount they normally would have, as anti-trust cases come with trebled damages.

  32. invizibleskull says: Apr 26, 2011 5:57 PM

    I found the problem! in the 3rd to last paragraph it states “Boies explained that the league anticipates further guidance from the league.”. I think they should find another source.

  33. mick730 says: Apr 26, 2011 6:00 PM

    There is no anti-trust exemption without a union. That’s the problem.

    However, there is no law that a court, or any branch of any level of government can use to force a business to remain in business.

    The 32 teams of the NFL should suspend operations, cancel the draft and the season. There is no way they should conduct business as normal, paying the players 4.5 billion dollars this season, or more, while at the same time, the same players are suing them for treble damages in court.

    The Packers made 5.2 million dollars last year. The Green Bay share of the liability in a anti-trust action against the league would certainly amount to much more than that. So what motivation is there for the clubs to conduct business under these conditions? There is none. The Packers for example, at the most, will lose around 5 million dollars that they might have made this year. That’s chicken feed compared to what they could lose by operating and then losing a anti-trust suit.

  34. alewatcher says: Apr 26, 2011 6:12 PM

    Which part of “The Lockout is enjoined” does the NFL fail to grasp?

  35. EJ says: Apr 26, 2011 6:26 PM

    joshborden says:
    Apr 26, 2011 4:56 PM
    THIS IS GETTING OLD!……..If the lockout does continue into the season, at least let it be long enough to cut into half of the Cowboys 5-6 Nationally Televised Prime Time Games THIS YEAR!! THAT’S BULL****!!…6-10 LAST YEAR!

    Sorry…..I have tourettes…..

    Titans Fan

    I couldn’t agree more!! 6-10 should not qualify for a single primetime game. Jerry paid somebody something.

    Bills Fan

  36. pfmadden says: Apr 26, 2011 6:31 PM

    @wasafan

    If all teams do that, they are acting in concert and in an illegal anticompetitive fashion. Congratulations, you’re qualified to be a league attorney!

  37. leagle911 says: Apr 26, 2011 6:50 PM

    The conservative, Republican, free market capitalists in the Owners boxes don’t want to be subjected to free market forces. They want to rig the system to their advantage and not be subject to anti-trust rules. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen without a collective bargaining agreement in place with the players, and the owner ego’s won’t let them contemplate that they have to get along with the players. Actually, what this all has ever been about is the small market owners using the players and the CBA to shield themselves from the potential Steinbrenners in Dallas, NY, and Washington. Now, the 95% of fans who don’t understand the legal system will see that the owners can’t have both anti-trust protection AND screw the players. Personally, I love seeing the players school the owners. Those big shot billionaires have finally gone up against folks (the judges) who can’t necessarily be bought. Even if this goes to the Supremes, the owners won’t necessarily find sympathetic ears. But it won’t go that far, and I think prudent owners will corral some of their more strident fellows and convince them to lean more in the direction of settlement. The NFL has been great because compromise was always reached. The owners need to come to that understanding again, before another federal judge gives them news that will make it really hard for Jerry Jones to make the payments on his Taj Mahal down there to Dallas…

  38. tommytd says: Apr 26, 2011 7:26 PM

    Hey court order…who cares…this is the NFL and we do whatever we want up to and including disregarding a court order. Give the judge one of Jerruh’s new seats and she’ll play ball! LOL

  39. gdeli says: Apr 26, 2011 7:28 PM

    lock the doors until both sides come out with an agreement!

  40. realitypolice says: Apr 26, 2011 7:53 PM

    pitch87mph says:
    Apr 26, 2011 5:25 PM
    Well if the judge gets her proverbial panties in a bunch over wanting clarification–perhaps she should seek another line of work.
    ========================

    And maybe a sexist idiot like yourself should seek to join the 21st century and stop acting like a knuckle dragging waterhead.

  41. mick730 says: Apr 26, 2011 7:59 PM

    “The conservative, Republican, free market capitalists in the Owners boxes don’t want to be subjected to free market forces.”

    Oh, you mean like Rooney? You know, the guy who own’s the Steelers and is Obama’s ambassador to Ireland?

    That Republican free market capitalist?

    It is very apparent from the posts here that the union side is just eaten up with class envy.

    It’s also kind of ironic, that the same people who are screaming for “free markets” for overpaid athletes are the same ones who are usually trying to crucify the “evil rich”, you know, the people making more than 200k per year, which by the way, isn’t even 2/3 of the way to the NFL league minimum.

    Tell these same “justice for jocks” crusaders that medical doctors, you know those people who spend 12 years in higher education, are really smart, and often save your life, should be able to make as much money as the market will bear, and they will faint in horror.

    It all boils down to the simple fact that unions are part of the American left and leftists support all unions, even unions for ueber rich miscreant and reprobate jocks in the NFL.

  42. mick730 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:09 PM

    THIS IS GETTING OLD!……..If the lockout does continue into the season, at least let it be long enough to cut into half of the Cowboys 5-6 Nationally Televised Prime Time Games THIS YEAR!! THAT’S BULL****!!…6-10 LAST YEAR!

    Well, if the players get what they want, this is what you’ll be getting, but not just 5 or 6 Cowboy games per season, but every week, week in and week out, season in and season out.

    All the union shills on here keep screaming about “scumbag billionaires”, but if the unionists get their way, it will only be billionaires who will be able to afford a franchise and those franchises will only be in New York, Dallas, Chicago, Boston and maybe Philly. CBS will do a deal with Dallas in a heartbeat just the way that ABC does that deal in college ball with Notre Dame.

    See, if the NFL needs to act as 32 individual businesses, there will be no television contract and no television revenues that will be able to be shared between the 32 teams. Each team will have to contract with a television network for revenue. And of course, the networks, as well as Direct TV, will want to televise only those games in the largest markets. Guess what happens to Green Bay, Minnesota, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Charlotte, St. Louis and some others? You will never see them on television. And worse, only the large market teams, owned by billionaires, will obtain the operational revenue to enable them to recruit all the best talent, college and pro. Because there will be no draft.

    But one thing that the unionists haven’t thought about is that a much smaller amount of slots and pay will be available for their members. If only 10 or so large market teams have the money to sign big player contracts, not only do the other teams lose out, the other teams’ fans lose out, but so do all those players on those small market teams.

    But the left has never been good about thinking through the long term implications of their various crusades. They just screw one thing up and move on to the next.

  43. puntpasskick says: Apr 26, 2011 8:20 PM

    I hope Nelson forces the NFL to open for business with very little restrictions on player movement ( as punishment for delaying the league year ) as of 12:01 AM Thursday…

  44. leagle911 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:22 PM

    “It is very apparent from the posts here that the union side is just eaten up with class envy.”

    No, what’s apparent is that the rich have been successful in convincing the sheeple to drink the kool-aid and accept anything they say with no questions asked.

    And, btw, Goodell today (in the Wall Street Journal, a well known radical leftist rag) argued in favor of the union.

    Guess why? It’s in the owners best interest, of course.

  45. voxveritass says: Apr 26, 2011 8:27 PM

    mick730 says:
    Apr 26, 2011 7:59 PM
    “The conservative, Republican, free market capitalists in the Owners boxes don’t want to be subjected to free market forces.”

    Oh, you mean like Rooney? You know, the guy who own’s the Steelers and is Obama’s ambassador to Ireland?

    That Republican free market capitalist?

    It is very apparent from the posts here that the union side is just eaten up with class envy.

    It’s also kind of ironic, that the same people who are screaming for “free markets” for overpaid athletes are the same ones who are usually trying to crucify the “evil rich”, you know, the people making more than 200k per year, which by the way, isn’t even 2/3 of the way to the NFL league minimum.

    Tell these same “justice for jocks” crusaders that medical doctors, you know those people who spend 12 years in higher education, are really smart, and often save your life, should be able to make as much money as the market will bear, and they will faint in horror.

    It all boils down to the simple fact that unions are part of the American left and leftists support all unions, even unions for ueber rich miscreant and reprobate jocks in the NFL.

    _______________________

    Nice try to invert.
    BTW, Rooney is on the record as opposing the 18 game system and being for getting this worked out. Class warfare? It’s already happened for the last 30 years but thanks for playing.
    No one’s fainting about a Dr making as much as the market will bear but it’s pretty obvious when you’re talking about miscreant and reprobate jocks you’re not talking about Jared Allen either, grand wizard.

  46. 3octaveFart says: Apr 26, 2011 8:49 PM

    Have the league or the owners done even one thing right yet?
    Anything?

    Bueller?
    Bueller?

  47. lostsok says: Apr 26, 2011 9:12 PM

    “…The inmate’s are running the asylum…good times for all you Marxists…”

    There are no “Marixsts” (sic) here. Throwing words like that out just makes you look radical and puts at question your seriousness. You lost the argument the moment you hit send, just like a Liberal who resorts to calling someone a Nazi.

    This is a complicated labor dispute in a Capitalist system. If you want to talk Marxism, how about a system where 32 separate businesses wanted a structured salary scale with no truly open market…wouldn’t that be “Socialism”?

    Answer: NO!!!

    It would be what happens when a billion dollar entertainment industry in a Capitalist system is awarded an antitrust exemption and modules a system unconventional in relationship to other industry. And what is happening now is what happens when that entity finds itself in a labor dispute.

    No more, no less. No Socialism…no Marxism…no Fascism.

    Now, for the love of whatever deity you pray to, please put those hyperbolic, inappropriate, incendiary words AWAY already. They do the opposite of help.

  48. 3octaveFart says: Apr 26, 2011 9:15 PM

    mick730 says: Apr 26, 2011 6:00 PM

    “There is no anti-trust exemption without a union. That’s the problem. ”

    How do you figure that?
    The league’s anti-trust exemption allows them to operate independent of this country’s monopoly laws, and was put in place mainly as a means to negotiate TV rights…
    The “union” doesn’t even enter that equation.

  49. southmo says: Apr 26, 2011 9:23 PM

    Depends on what you count as “right” 30octave.

    Since the owners are the only one of the two sides who have actually offered a compromise position, then I’d say yes.

    If by “right” you simply mean caving 101% into the Union’s demands, then no. Of course, that usually doesn’t happen in negotiations.

    Unfortunately, sports leagues are not looked upon favorably by American Business law. So the players have the power for now.

    Still, the lockout has been over-ruled by one judge and if there is no Stay… then like with everything else the players are suing for…

    be careful what you wish for.

    When uncontrolled free agency hits, I’m glad I’ve got Jerry’s deep pockets on my side.

  50. southmo says: Apr 26, 2011 9:33 PM

    voxveritass…. I guess you didn’t read that the owners took the 18-game thing off the table as part of the “Worst Offer in Sports History”?

  51. mackie66 says: Apr 27, 2011 8:20 AM

    Obama ignores the constitution why cant the NFL ignor Nelson ? Lostsok, is that more censorship from the left ????
    And yes the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Leave a Reply

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