Skip to content

NFL: “We need a few days to sort this out”

NFL Owners Meet To Discuss Status Of Contract Negotiations Getty Images

While the NFL world waits for what comes next in this labor legal scrum, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league will proceed “in an orderly way.”

Aiello released a statement to NFL Network’s Jason LaCanfora on Tuesday morning:

“We are going to proceed in an orderly way that is fair to the teams and players and complies with court orders.  Players are being treated with courtesy and respect at club facilities,” Aiello said.   “We do not believe it is appropriate for football activities to take place until there are further rulings from the court.  Under last set of proposals made to NFLPA teams wouldn’t even be into offseason programs yet.  We need a few days to sort this out, as NFLPA attorney Jim Quinn indicated.”

While the NFL waits a few days to sort things out, presumably they will get a ruling on whether a stay will be issued for Monday’s ruling on the lifting of the lockout.

If the NFL’s appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling isn’t heard, we could start the 2011 league year sooner than later.  It sounds like we’ll be in this strange in-between, however, for a few more days.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
41 Responses to “NFL: “We need a few days to sort this out””
  1. wawa33 says: Apr 26, 2011 11:14 AM

    I feel sad for JaMeatloaf Russell…I heard he reported to the Raiders facility today for a couple of sandwiches and a shot of “sizzurp” codeine. What will JaMeatlaof do now?

  2. richsaint says: Apr 26, 2011 11:16 AM

    It does seem like things are starting to pick up. My main hope out of all this and hopefully both sides is a new CBA before the summer is out.

  3. wannabeqb says: Apr 26, 2011 11:16 AM

    Translation: we lost so we are going to drag our feet as much as we possibly can.

    Owners, stop sulking and start the year!

  4. mantei says: Apr 26, 2011 11:17 AM

    What gives them the right to defy the order for a few hours much less a few days?

  5. parasonic says: Apr 26, 2011 11:18 AM

    hurry up so my boys can get rid of mcnabb for some immediate satisfaction (draft pick(s) in 2011) !!

  6. chapnastier says: Apr 26, 2011 11:19 AM

    “If the NFL’s appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling isn’t heard, we could start the 2011 league year sooner than later.”

    Um isn’t that the exact opposite of what would happen? I have a serious question though… since the players are operating without the guidance of a CBA and not as union employees, would it be possible for teams, now separate businesses, to just close the door and say you are fired? Since most of the past contracts were likely negotiated with considerations to a CBA being present it would appear that the owners have no obligation to employ anyone under past contractual agreements? Am I wrong here?

  7. parkerfly says: Apr 26, 2011 11:24 AM

    I can’t believe the owners didn’t have a contingency plan for what to do if things didn’t go their way in court. That’s a real lack of preparation. At a time when neither side wants to show any weakness, they’re coming across as disorganized.

  8. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 11:25 AM

    “We need a few days to sort this out”

    I think that’s what the Germans High Command said as the Red Army was entering Berlin.

  9. duanethomas says: Apr 26, 2011 11:26 AM

    The owners were so sure of victory they had no Plan B?

    Or they are sulking like the little bishes they are.

    Get back to the table and get a deal done.

    Pash, Boies and Goodell, all gone by the end of 2013

  10. hendawg21 says: Apr 26, 2011 11:27 AM

    Will someone please put the adults in charge…why wasn’t a plan in place that in the event of no agreement the league would continue under the previous CBA in order to keep some sense of order. The more this circus continues the more I realize I don’t need the NFL…

  11. jerrydesaulniers says: Apr 26, 2011 11:28 AM

    First Quarter Score
    Laywers 17 Fans 0

  12. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 26, 2011 11:29 AM

    I guess when you the NFL you can treat a Judge’s ORDER as if it were just a suggestion…

    Sounds like they are in contempt. I bet if Nelson told Goodell he was about to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit (custom tailored of course!) we may see a different reaction from these folks.

  13. teke184 says: Apr 26, 2011 11:32 AM

    Not sure if this is mentioned in another thread, but someone I know who has been digging through the verdict has found something that may kill the NFL’s chances at appeal.

    Specifically, they found where the NFLPA recertified in 1993, at the insistence of the NFL over Gene Upshaw’s objections, and that an agreement was made between the league and the NFLPA that the NFL couldn’t claim the NFLPA had done a sham decertification at any point in the future.

    “Since 1993, the Players and the League have operated under the SSA. Among the
    negotiated terms of the SSA, the Players, who had de-certified their union in order to
    bring antitrust claims, acceded to the NFL’s demand that they re-certify their union within
    30 days. As an apparent form of quid pro quo for that accession, the NFL agreed to
    waive any right in the future to assert the non-statutory labor exemption, after the
    expiration of the CBA, on the ground that the Players’ disclaimer was a sham or
    otherwise ineffective to end the labor exemption.
    (See Doc. No. 43-1 (Declaration of
    Barbara P. Berens, Ex. A (Amended SSA)) Art. XVIII § 5(b).)

    In fact, Eugene Upshaw,who had served as the Executive Director of the NFLPA since 1983, has stated that the “only reason” he “agreed to recommend that the NFLPA be converted from a trade 11CASE 0:11-cv-00639-SRN-JJG Document 99 Filed 04/25/11 Page 11 of 89
    association back into a union” was “because the owners demanded that as a condition for
    the Settlement Agreement,” but only in exchange for the owners’ agreement that they
    would not challenge any subsequent election to again decertify the NFLPA as their
    collective bargaining representative.
    (Doc. No. 7-1 (Declaration of Richard A.
    Berthelsen), ¶ 8 (emphasis in original).)”

    Punitive damages for the NFLPA from the NFL, here we come.

  14. holdthemayo123 says: Apr 26, 2011 11:34 AM

    Perhaps a lawyer can speak to this better, but how does the NFL have the right to decide when they are going to comply with a court order?

  15. crazy2bbengals says: Apr 26, 2011 11:35 AM

    So much for planning a head or for that matter, having any plan……

  16. commoncents says: Apr 26, 2011 11:36 AM

    This ruling is not a win for the players. All it will serve to do is give the PA a reason to NOT negotiate in good faith, and in the meantime, make us all sweat about the future of the draft and the sport we all love.

  17. crazy2bbengals says: Apr 26, 2011 11:37 AM

    dumb, pushy jerks 2 , Old bumbling idiots 0…

  18. pappysarcasm says: Apr 26, 2011 11:38 AM

    just cancelled my NFL sunday ticket…and spent the money on a cruise for sept 8-12! Not one red cent of my hard earned will ever go to an NFLPunkAzz member again!

  19. realitypolice says: Apr 26, 2011 11:38 AM

    What a joke.

    Every single legal expert in the country predicted that the lockout would be lifted, and we’re supposed to believe that they didn’t have a contingency plan in place?

    They did and you’re seeing it. Stall, stall, stall.

  20. anthonioustheprettygood says: Apr 26, 2011 11:45 AM

    JaMeastloaf Russell,,,ahhhh hahaha… I literally laughed out loud at my desk at that one.

    I predict the owners have more up their sleeves than what we are seeing. No way were they not prepared for this. They are all multi millionaires and even billionaires. They know how to get their way. That being said, I just want to watch football this fall.

  21. eaglesfan290 says: Apr 26, 2011 11:45 AM

    Seriously they both look like spoiled brats! Now we have to go through all these legal challenges and for what so they just end up back at a table negotiating a new deal……………….what’s the point other than lawyers getting paid for going through the motions an guys beating there chest?

    Congrats Players you don’t have to go to training camp!

    Congrats NFL if you lose the fans loose the draft and everything fun about this sport.

    I am sick of this fire De Smith fire Goodell and put two adults in a room to work out a deal that is fair for both sides!

  22. biist says: Apr 26, 2011 11:52 AM

    No one “won”. NFLPA shopped and found a progressive judge at courts-r-us mall. The scaffolding that holds up the game itself is teetering while fat men play a kids game of legal chicken at the top–ignoring the laws of PR gravity.
    Fans are loyal to teams and civic pride, not players. Fans’ wallets have only so many dollars which are under great and very real economic challenges. The value of the game is approaching tipping point of just too expensive. The venue costs are killing cities and taxpayers.
    Its a delicate balance that if the players win the battle they lose the game. Profitable teams will push to shut-down small-market teams and in the end a smaller league with less revenue (if it survives at all) will be the final outcome. SO players win their *percentages* but against a smaller pie. It makes no tactical, strategic or financial sense to follow Mr. Smith to Washington, but perfect sense for the few players and certain lawyers who will benefit–now.

  23. blackshirtz says: Apr 26, 2011 11:58 AM

    Start the season, Fire all of the players, and start over.

    Welcome to the UFL Manning, Brees, etc.

    I would rather watch players who love the game and are willing to play for the love of the game. These players make much too much….. They obviously have no clue how to run a business. Many of them will find out once they are on the unemployment line.

    Screw the players, GO OWNERS.

  24. mray828 says: Apr 26, 2011 12:10 PM

    I think the NFL/Owners are learning they aren’t going to get any help in court and the best thing they could do is sign a deal before everything we love about the NFL changes (draft, salary cap/floor)

  25. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 26, 2011 12:12 PM

    pappysarcasm says: Apr 26, 2011 11:38 AM

    just cancelled my NFL sunday ticket…and spent the money on a cruise for sept 8-12! Not one red cent of my hard earned will ever go to an NFLPunkAzz member again!

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

    Thats money that would go to the owners-NOT the players. In the future (when you want to make a futile empty gesture like this one) try to do a little research first. OK?

  26. nmking26 says: Apr 26, 2011 12:19 PM

    Wait….blackshirtz. You complain about the players making so much…yet you side with the billionaire owners?

    You side with the side that OPTED OUT OF THE CBA?

    You side with the side that IMPOSED THE LOCKOUT?

    You side with the side that DEMANDED 600 MILLION dollars without any reason?

    Yeah that makes sense.

    And I’d rather watch talented players than players who “love the game”. I’d take Brees over Quincy Carter any day of the week no matter how much Quincy Carter loves the game.

  27. bronco1st says: Apr 26, 2011 12:21 PM

    Screw the owners, go players! Gee, this is just like football!

  28. liontomyself says: Apr 26, 2011 12:34 PM

    teke184 says:

    “after the expiration of the CBA”.

    _____________

    I think that is the sticking point. I believe they decertified before the (extended) expiration of the CBA.

  29. whatswiththehate says: Apr 26, 2011 12:42 PM

    “parkerfly says:
    Apr 26, 2011 11:24 AM
    I can’t believe the owners didn’t have a contingency plan for what to do if things didn’t go their way in court. That’s a real lack of preparation. At a time when neither side wants to show any weakness, they’re coming across as disorganized.”
    —————————-
    Many of you just see the athletetic side of this business but you seem to forget it is a money making business. So remind me again, how those at the top behave when they either get in trouble or have to comply with the law? Yes, just like these NFL owners right now. Wonder why when these big business owners vote they first thing they want to change are the laws…

  30. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 12:43 PM

    “I would rather watch players who love the game and are willing to play for the love of the game. ”

    No you won’t, and the TV contract would get cut by 80% if that happened. And merchandising would go to zero.

    Hello, 6 team NFL!

    Now that UFL, on the other hand, would be a smashing success. I’d love to buy into that!

  31. endzonezombie says: Apr 26, 2011 12:49 PM

    The format of this site may have been adequate for the years it was a wannabe football site. Now that it has hit the bigtime, it needs to change its forum format so that individual comments can be responded to. The curent ‘ thumbs up/down’ format is childish. It seems more fair that if you want to vote, you have to post a response and express the reasoning behind your vote.

  32. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 12:58 PM

    Prospective “UFL” owners ready to give Peyton Manning a raise tomorrow:

    - Jon Bon Jovi
    - Donald Trump (he did this before, remember?)
    - Rush Limbaugh

    And pretty much every individual who has tried to buy a franchise over the course of the last 30 years.

    That competitive league would CRUSH your NFL of walk-ons from Fordham.

  33. tigerhebert says: Apr 26, 2011 1:31 PM

    I am so excited about the possibility of all this legal wrangling to be behind us, so every one can just move on enjoying this great game!

    On a side note, check out my football site. Complete with a Round 1 Mock Draft.

    http://tigerreport.blogspot.com/

  34. grandsonofcoach says: Apr 26, 2011 1:39 PM

    @teke184

    The key here in the argument that the NFL can’t bring a sham defense is the language around “after the expiration of the CBA.” The union dissolved hours before the CBA expiration to avoid having to wait 6 months to decertify. So the NFL plans to argue that the restriction on arguing sham doesn’t apply here because the union decertified before the CBA expiration.

  35. eagleswin says: Apr 26, 2011 1:41 PM

    moochzilla says:Apr 26, 2011 12:58 PM

    Prospective “UFL” owners ready to give Peyton Manning a raise tomorrow:

    - Jon Bon Jovi
    – Donald Trump (he did this before, remember?)
    – Rush Limbaugh

    And pretty much every individual who has tried to buy a franchise over the course of the last 30 years.

    That competitive league would CRUSH your NFL of walk-ons from Fordham.

    ——————————–
    Manning estimated salary for 2011 alone would allow him to buy a UFL franchise without dipping into any past earnings.

    Albert Haynesworth could buy multiple UFL franchises with his contract.

    My point is, the UFL affording to give Manning a raise is a laugh. Manning making 10 percent of what he’s making in the NFL is unrealistic. The UFL was defaulting on loans and payroll as recently as last year.

    If you think the UFL has hundreds of millions laying around to pay the prima donnas what they think they are worth, you are sadly mistaken.

  36. chuckyd317 says: Apr 26, 2011 2:11 PM

    You’ve had 40some days to figure it out already… You lost, get over it…

  37. thebiblestudent says: Apr 26, 2011 2:24 PM

    The CBA ended on midnight of March 11 (after the delays). The League filed a complaint with the NLRB previous to that date complaining that the players planned to decertify in order to file lawsuits (thus not negotiating in good faith). The NFLPA filed decertification papers at 4PM on March 11 (7 hours before the CBA expired), yet continued to negotiate as a union for another hour (until 5PM of said day).

    Thus, the language in the CBA shows the owners have every right to call it a sham (because it was), because the union did not decertify after the CBA, but instead while the CBA was still in place. And to top it all off, they still were negotiating as a union after supposedly decertifying. Not much more proof is needed to prove they were not acting in good faith than that.

    Had the players not walked out of negotiations, there would have been no lockout. So, for the players to say “let us play” when they walked out of the negotiations which would have let them play is hypocritical.

  38. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 2:26 PM

    EAGLESWIN (and I hope they do)

    I am responding to blackshirtz ridiculous post about the UFL. If the NFL committed suicide (which it will not) by slashing salaries, there would be an opportunity for prospective owners to replicate the NFL. The next highest-profile league would be the venue where the talent COULD land.

    You’d have big money ownership groups either buying existing teams with some infrastructure or just starting their own league. If this happened, a UFL team would suddenly skyrocket in value.

    Look at the USFL and the CBA (basketball) for the roadmap. Essentially, they’d be doing what Trump failed to do with the USFL – get an NFL team without buying into the NFL.

    You buy the talent, you get the interest of the TV networks, especially if the scenario unfolded as the poster describes (where the NFL cuts salaries to a bare minimum). Because the NFL contracts would be reduced to tennis levels with Mike Kafka as its MVP.

    It’s been said that had the CBA not screwed up their courting of Kareem, they may have survived and overtaken the NBA.

    Once you get that TV money, you’re all set. The bigger challenge is to get into a venue that can hold all the fans (although in smaller cities that may actually be a benefit since the NFL teams couldn’t fill the larger stadiums).

    None of this will happen, because no one would ever do what Blackshirtz is contending. Because that would be silly.

  39. vesselsk says: Apr 26, 2011 3:44 PM

    @realitypolice – 100% right. The NFL had a plan all along. Remember that the league thought they were going to deal with Judge Doty, not Judge Nelson…..they expected to lose this round.

    …..I’m still trying to figure out what good it did for the judge lift the lockout with no CBA structure in place. It’s starting to look more and more like Judge Nelson’s either a shill for the players or she’s clueless as to how the business of football works.

  40. realitypolice says: Apr 26, 2011 3:58 PM

    The judge lifted the lockout.

    The judge has not ruled on the owner’s motion to stay the lift.

    The owners have nonetheless decided to continue the lockout while awaiting a ruling.

    The owners, therefore, are in direct defiance of the judge’s decision.

    Contempt, anyone?

  41. thefiesty1 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:45 PM

    Maybe this time they’ll be assigned a Republican judge and have a snowballs chance in hell.

Leave a Reply

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