Skip to content

No word on stay expected Monday

NFL Lockout Looms As Negotiations Are Extended Getty Images

The waiting game will continue at least one more day.

This offseason of absurdity — (Waiting for Goodell?) — will last another day in undefined limbo.  Judy Battista of the New York Times reported via a clerk at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that a ruling Monday on a NFL stay is unlikely because it was a travel day for the three judges involved.  (Perhaps they went to Jazz Fest.)

It’s unclear whether the judges will rule at all after they already put a temporary stay on the injunction lifting the lockout almost two weeks ago.  Perhaps they will if enough NFL reporters badger their office on a daily basis.

UPDATE:  Here is Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal’s take on the matter:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Union
18 Responses to “No word on stay expected Monday”
  1. unclehilroy says: May 9, 2011 4:12 PM

    Why don’t you just let us know when something actually happens…

  2. bengalanthony13 says: May 9, 2011 4:16 PM

    We Todd Did. Sofa King We Todd Did.

  3. hobartbaker says: May 9, 2011 4:17 PM

    “Waiting for Goodell”

    +10 to the little guy with the wavy hair!

  4. rajbais says: May 9, 2011 4:18 PM

    “perhaps they went to Jazz Fest”???

    For a man not known for hilarity, that was actually a funny one from Gregg.

  5. 1liondriven says: May 9, 2011 4:19 PM

    Great, now we have judges acting like NFL divas.

    This league makes me want to wretch.

  6. eagleswin says: May 9, 2011 4:19 PM

    Are we going to get one of these every day until the league’s appeal is heard in June?

  7. Chris Fiorentino says: May 9, 2011 4:19 PM

    No ruling is necessary. Why would they bother to give either side the leverage before the “mediation” begins next week? Even if they remove the stay, what good would that do us? We’d have an NFL in turmoil with teams not knowing what they can and can not do because there is no CBA. How would trades work? Free Agency? How would ANYTHING work when the teams would never know if they are going to be sued for anti-trust violations?

    I say, leave the stay on until after “mediation” fails once again. Then rule for the owners and force the players to get off their high-horse and NEGOTIATE!!!!

  8. geo1113 says: May 9, 2011 4:20 PM

    Perhaps they will if enough NFL reporters badger their office on a daily basis.
    ______________________

    Sure. That will help…help make it take even longer!

  9. bringsanityback says: May 9, 2011 4:31 PM

    I”m thinking of that old Bill Parecells qote from NFL films when he is chewing out the sideline judge: “You know what the NFL stands for? Not for long. ” Quite appropriate these days…

  10. whags334 says: May 9, 2011 4:33 PM

    This is garbage, make a dang ruling already. These egotistical, pompous, over paid, under worked, lazy, slack jawed, pinheads are milking the crap out of this to feed their egos. This is their fifteen minutes and they are going to drag this out as long as they can. This lockout is irrevocably crippling some organizations who are depending on a FA period in the hopes of a successful 2011 season.

  11. geo1113 says: May 9, 2011 4:38 PM

    “You know what the NFL stands for? Not for long. ”
    ___________________

    That was Jerry Glanville.

  12. whags334 says: May 9, 2011 4:45 PM

    o ruling is necessary. Why would they bother to give either side the leverage before the “mediation” begins next week? Even if they remove the stay, what good would that do us? We’d have an NFL in turmoil with teams not knowing what they can and can not do because there is no CBA. How would trades work? Free Agency? How would ANYTHING work when the teams would never know if they are going to be sued for anti-trust violations?

    I say, leave the stay on until after “mediation” fails once again. Then rule for the owners and force the players to get off their high-horse and NEGOTIATE!!!!

    ———————————————————

    Can someone tell me where Demoron Smith gets off thinking he holds any leverage on the owners…they are the OWNERS!! The owners and the former players are the ones who made the league what it is today. They are the reason we are talking about how to split up 9 billion dollars. In what world does an employee get the right to tell a boss, “yeah, I don’t think I am getting enough of your profits. Let me see your books.” I am really hoping the owners would give all the players one chance to come in off the street and agree to the new contract. Those that do not can pound sand and then the owners bring in an entire league of scabs, banning for life any players who still sit out. I know it would suck for a couple of years but then we would have a whole new crop of players to route for and I am thinking they would be much more appreciative of the opportunity.

  13. Chris Guest says: May 9, 2011 5:02 PM

    You are not going to get an ruling until after the hearing in June. It is probably a clerk trying to pull reporters chains because he/she is tired of the constant reporters calling.

    There is no reason for an order removing the stay because what if the NFL wins at the hearing. It would be silly for the Appellate Court to remove the stay and then reimpose it after the hearing. It is a waste of time and judicially inefficient and would be prime target to get slapped by the SC.

    Here is another hint: the judges already gave you the outcome be issuing a stay. If the Appellate court thought the case wasn’t important enough or felt the NFL owner’s case stunk, they would have denied the stay and went on with life. By instituting the emergency stay, the judges, just told everyone what they want to do. It will take a very big argument, akin to a Memphis Miracly from the NFLPA(and it is still the NFLPA) to switch the outcome.

  14. mystictate says: May 9, 2011 5:21 PM

    Another quick vote
    Thumbs up if you like D. Smith
    Thumbs down if you think he is a p.o.s
    Me thumbs down

  15. jerseybaron says: May 9, 2011 8:00 PM

    At this particular junction I couldn’t care less anymore. Let the league put one last offer on the table, give the players 1 week. If they refuse the offer then cancel football for the entire 2011 season. Tell the players they have one week and that’s it period. Make it so the players that were drafted still belong to those teams that drafted them but without contracts. Have a draft next year with the exact order as this years. The league would have to suck it up and loose the TV revenue for one year. But that’s that way it is.

  16. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: May 9, 2011 10:19 PM

    whags334 says: May 9, 2011 4:33 PM

    This is garbage, make a dang ruling already. These egotistical, pompous, over paid, under worked, lazy, slack jawed, pinheads are milking the crap out of this to feed their egos. This is their fifteen minutes and they are going to drag this out as long as they can. This lockout is irrevocably crippling some organizations who are depending on a FA period in the hopes of a successful 2011 season.
    ~~~~~

    Whags, get real baby and start to dig it! Tommy Brady filed an anti-trust lawsuit in Federal Court. This won’t be settled anytime soon. Let Brady and De Mo’ know how you feel. Dig it?

  17. whags334 says: May 10, 2011 6:38 AM

    Chris Guest says:
    May 9, 2011 5:02 PM
    You are not going to get an ruling until after the hearing in June. It is probably a clerk trying to pull reporters chains because he/she is tired of the constant reporters calling.

    There is no reason for an order removing the stay because what if the NFL wins at the hearing. It would be silly for the Appellate Court to remove the stay and then reimpose it after the hearing. It is a waste of time and judicially inefficient and would be prime target to get slapped by the SC.

    Here is another hint: the judges already gave you the outcome be issuing a stay. If the Appellate court thought the case wasn’t important enough or felt the NFL owner’s case stunk, they would have denied the stay and went on with life. By instituting the emergency stay, the judges, just told everyone what they want to do. It will take a very big argument, akin to a Memphis Miracly from the NFLPA(and it is still the NFLPA) to switch the outcome.

    _________________________________

    So the opposite of what you are saying could also be true. If they ultimately end up siding with Judge Nelson’s ruling then granting the temporary stay looks a bit obsurd. They emergency stay was granted, not to carry on until the hearing, but to enable the Judges to get a grasp of the case in its current state. It would be stupid for them to come in that quickly and grant a month long stay based soley on the fact that the owners asked for it and basically penalize the players because of the owners appeal.

  18. Chris Guest says: May 10, 2011 10:53 AM

    Whaggs34,

    Maybe. but Injunctions are serious issues because you are preventing someone from doing something. They are not lightly granted, it is why the irreparable harm issue, is the key turning point in most of these types of cases and if the party seeking the preliminary injunction can be compensated via $ most Prelim Inj. are denied. In Nelson memo, she said money can’t be used to compensate the players. That is load of crap. Most players do not get paid right now anyway, some make money via workout bonuses, and other compensation vehicles. There is a very easy way to figure out compensation in this case and this is likely the reason the judges instituted the stay.

    hence, why the emergency stay was implemented because the App Ct. felt Nelson overstepped her bounds. However, if they felt she was right, there never would have been an emergency stay just a move to appeal of the Prelim inj. to the court.

    I’ll also say there is the issue of Nelson not recussing herself given her connections to the previous case certainly. If it was a big “name” case she would have. The owners could have gotten her tossed but if they failed it would kill them in court.

    As a last matter, there isn’t likely to go to the SC next but to a full en banc review by the 8th Cir. But heaven forbid a lawyer provide that information.

    My firm belief is the owners are playing with a small lead in the 4th quarter and the time is running out on the players. If season starts and they players aren’t getting paid – they are done. My guess is by week 3.

Leave a Reply

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