Skip to content

Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy

MootFestival-01

A full 17 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a temporary stay of the order lifting the lockout until the Eighth Circuit could rule on a motion for a full stay pending resolution of the appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s April 25 decision, the Eighth Circuit has decided to extend the stay.

The written opinion extends much farther than that.

Here’s the money quote, from page 11:  “[W]e have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”

Uh-oh.

Though some may view the Eighth Circuit’s 14-page ruling as a gratuitous tipping of the court’s hand as to the looming appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling, the truth is that the motion for a stay filed by the league represents, in many respects, a mirror image of the motion for preliminary relief filed by the players on March 11.  To secure a lifting of the lockout while the lawsuit proceeds, the players had to show that they’ll suffer “irreparable harm,” that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that a balance of the overall fairness of the case favors of the players.  To obtain a stay of the order lifting the lockout, the NFL was required to make a “strong showing” that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and that fairness and the public interest favor the league’s position.

In finding that the league was able to satisfy the legal requirements for the issuance of the stay, the Eighth Circuit has in many respects knocked down Judge Nelson’s conclusion that the lockout should be lifted.  Most powerful in this regard is the quote pasted above.  If the Eighth Circuit believes the NFL has made a strong showing of success as to the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the present facts, then the Eighth Circuit necessarily believes that the players won’t succeed on that key issue as the lawsuit proceeds.  And if the Eighth Circuit believes that the players have no chance of proving that the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits a court-order lifting the lockout later, the Eighth Circuit will not issue a court order lifting the lockout now.

The challenge for U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan will be to persuade the league to continue to operate in good faith at mediation, despite the fresh knowledge that the NFL likely will win the appeal.  And to the extent that the NFL was demonstrating good faith on Monday when it opted to formulate a new offer, the real test will be whether that new offer represents an effort to craft a meaningful long-term partnership, or whether the league’s new offer will simply reflect the new leverage in which the NFL suddenly is frolicking.

Let’s hope it’s the former.  The league has a chance to act like grown-ups in the wake of its victory.  For 66 days and counting, neither side has.  Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.

We doubt that will happen, but we’d love for the NFL to prove us wrong.

Permalink 70 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
70 Responses to “Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy”
  1. lovesportsandsurfing says: May 16, 2011 7:34 PM

    Say that again?

  2. clayjayhawk says: May 16, 2011 7:36 PM

    Are you ready for some football?

  3. vahawker says: May 16, 2011 7:37 PM

    “Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.”

    Impartial and down the middle? Looks that way to me.

  4. footballfan292 says: May 16, 2011 7:37 PM

    And the rich get richer.

    God bless America!

  5. whatsafairway says: May 16, 2011 7:38 PM

    Fair is certainly subjective but to suggest the NFL won’t make a fair offer and you want to be proved wrong is suggesting you believe in the players position of “fair”, regardless of your constant rants about being objective.

    What’s that song, “true colors shining through”…

  6. sufferingbirdsfan says: May 16, 2011 7:39 PM

    Act like grownups? Yeah right. These guys have spent the last few years preparing for this. They now have the hammer and you better believe they’re gonna use it. The players will be folding very shortly.

  7. mkepackfan says: May 16, 2011 7:40 PM

    Cue the Price is Right fail horn.

  8. brasho says: May 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    Ummmm, uhhhhhhhh…. like, what?

  9. smacklayer says: May 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    Yeah for owners!!! Time to get back to the table since it is fairly obvious now that this whole law suit thing isn’t working out so well. Thank you Debag Smith for wasting so much of our time and the NFLs money in fighting this frivilous law suit.

  10. nahcouldntbethat says: May 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    On to the resolution of the pending anti-trust legislation, which will change the face of the NFL one way or the other.

  11. blackshirtz says: May 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    no comprende engleshe?

  12. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: May 16, 2011 7:41 PM

    All this hype before the big ruling came down. Then 1.5* seconds after the gate opens reality hits the players:

    “DeMo is to Ochocinco as the Owners are to the bull.”

  13. madenatewell says: May 16, 2011 7:42 PM

    I just want free agency to start. I want football. Please let both sides realize that its time to give a fair offer to the fans, just get back to work…

  14. jcusa514 says: May 16, 2011 7:44 PM

    these new sound ads are killing me. took me a few tries to actually find where they were coming from. get rid of them!

  15. dwoofer says: May 16, 2011 7:44 PM

    If the players will hang in there and practice long-tested strike tactics, they can succeed where a fancy lawsuit fails. Refuse to play, put financial pressure on the owners, and see who blinks first. When the first week of the season rolls around and the owners are not getting those mega-millions in merchandise sales, ticket revenues (especially the pre-season gates), and TV money, they will be willing to talk.

  16. hawkeye6 says: May 16, 2011 7:45 PM

    Oh, for the love of God.

    YOU’RE ALL GREEDY

  17. friendlylittletrees says: May 16, 2011 7:46 PM

    The more I think about this, the more I am on the side of the owners… These players act like such entitled brats, they need to learn their place.

    If they want the money, they should buy a team when they are done…

    Or ride a bull.

  18. moggy6actual says: May 16, 2011 7:48 PM

    “Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.”
    ———————————-

    Maybe Day 67 will see the players setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the owners and instead negotiate in good faith instead of sitting there with their arms crossed saying ‘no’ to every proposal.

  19. readimgram1 says: May 16, 2011 7:49 PM

    The last deal seemed close. If I am the owners I cut another 100 million off the demands. Offer the players a set percentage of gains in excess of the expectations by which the deal is set so they can share in the growth if it is much greater

    Then also make sure there is a clause that if the growth is less then expected that the players lose money and cap at that same percentage.

    They want to be partners and share in the growth. They need to share in the risk.

  20. skeptic2 says: May 16, 2011 7:50 PM

    This seems like bad news for those of us who use professional football as a lightning rod. I love to see Al Davis, Jerry Johnson, Danny Snider lose and/or get humiliated. I am waiting in high hopes that the same happens to Vick. The full Favre fiasco was by far the most satisfying sports development I can remeber. Once in a while I cheer for somebody, e.g. the Packers, but mainly because I dislike their competition.
    If there is an agreement, it means that the NFL will continue as a viable, competitive entity and that there will be football this year. That would dash my budding hope to see a complete train wreck this year, followed by an absence of a salary cap (let alone a rookie salary cap), a discontinuation of the draft, an absence of viability of the smaller market teams, etc.
    I still have high hopes that Smith can snatch defeat from the jaws of compromise, but at the moment it is looking grim.

  21. vahawker says: May 16, 2011 7:50 PM

    jcusa514 says: May 16, 2011 7:44 PM

    these new sound ads are killing me. took me a few tries to actually find where they were coming from. get rid of them!

    Firefox with ad block plus yields NO more ads. Didn’t even know what you were talking about as I have never heard one. Stop using IE…it sucks (IMHO)

  22. duster1982 says: May 16, 2011 7:51 PM

    @dwoofer

    You want the players to now strike?! And what union would be organizing that? Oh right, it decertified.

    Players would cross that picket line faster than an NFL player putting his foot in his mouth on Twitter.

  23. billybats says: May 16, 2011 7:51 PM

    I seem to remember that after Judge Nelson issued her injunction removing the lockout, “Judge MF” wrote a long article taking the NFL to task for its litigation strategy, as if Nelson was the last word.

    I wonder, will we be seeing a piece soon ripping De “Jackie Chiles” Smith for his outrageously bad decision to pursue litigation instead of negotiating with the league?

    Or are you going to pretend that you didn’t obviously take the players’ side and hope that no one notices?

  24. mannynh says: May 16, 2011 7:52 PM

    I can’t believe I’m saying this but, I hope your going to post another article about this so maybe, just maybe, us laymans can understand what the hell this article just said..

    for instance, I will summarize what I’m saying so everyone can understand: Do we as fans have to bend over any farther for there to be football again? Or is this far enough?

  25. bobwhitequail says: May 16, 2011 7:52 PM

    If you read the document it’s very cut and dry. Judge Nelson said teh court has jurisdiciton to prevent the lockout because they are no longer a union (this is the sham, or trick by the union to decertify and pretend they are no longer a union, even though they continue to act as one under a different name).

    Congress intentionally wrote the law to keep the federal courts out of deciding such labor disputes.

    It’s clear from the law that the courts do not have jurisdiction to prevent the lockout and Judge Nelson overstepped her authority:

    “The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor
    dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. See id. at *24. We
    have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act. The plain language of
    the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is “between
    one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or
    associations of employees.” ”

    You can read it especiallu on pages 7 and 8 of the court document here:

    http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

  26. fground says: May 16, 2011 7:52 PM

    “Let’s hope it’s the former. The league has a chance to act like grown-ups in the wake of its victory. For 66 days and counting, neither side has. Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.”

    You can’t serious. What behaviour have the owners exhibited in anyway that would suggest they would behave in such a magnanimous fashion?

    If they have the upper hand they will use it for all it’s worth.

    You don’t become billionaires by playing nice in the sandbox.

  27. finsuppatsdown says: May 16, 2011 7:53 PM

    I doubt anyone in the process will act “like grown ups” Here is hoping I am wrong as well…

    Get the deal done and play football. Please don’t ruin this sport for me like baseball was not that long ago……

  28. airraid77 says: May 16, 2011 7:55 PM

    BOOOO YA!
    The successful win again! AS THEY SHOULD!

  29. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: May 16, 2011 7:57 PM

    Against the backdrop of today’s 8th Circuit ruling, the players will be pressured to entertain the possibility of making a meaningful concession on the core economic issue of revenue splitting. Chances are, if they’re willing to meet the owners half way on the dollar differential, then fans should justifiably feel confident in the season starting on time under a new CBA with labor peace for years to come. Only a new CBA will ensure that our game is not changed for the worse, especially from a competitive balance standpoint.

  30. valman61 says: May 16, 2011 7:57 PM

    That last paragraph did not come across as partial or objective. As far as I can see, the NFL has screamed negotiation over litigation since day one, put offers on the table to prove they mean it, and the players have opted to litigate. I can care less who gets the better deal, I just want the same nfl ive known for 20 years and not MLB. Here’s hoping the nflpa realizes they won’t win in litigation and decide to start proposing counter offers and negotiate to an acceptable deal for both sides. That’s about what your last paragraph should have said, rather then a cheap shot at owners who continue to make offers that go unanswered. If I want to pay you 10 bux but you want 20. I offer you 10, a logical person says no to low I want 20 and you negotiate an end price. The nflpa has simply walked away and told all your friends how terrible the 10 offer was. That’s unacceptable to me in it’s simplest form.

  31. ftblfan9 says: May 16, 2011 7:58 PM

    Great reporting and analysis. Can’t find this detail anywhere else right now. Thanks.

  32. endzonezombie says: May 16, 2011 7:59 PM

    Maybe these juges better start hiring bodyguards. And maybe they should stop appointing these dirtbags for life ust so they cabn accept backdoor bribes to support their contributors.

  33. mhs8031 says: May 16, 2011 8:00 PM

    I am hoping for the long term future of football, and I think the owners’ financial security is key. The players are given college educations and salaries that are 20 times higher than other college graduates. They do not get a diploma and are broke in 3 years following their NFL careers. Do I want to give them more when they, as a group, can’t handle what they have already been given to play a game?

  34. whatsafairway says: May 16, 2011 8:05 PM

    “Oh, for the love of God.

    YOU’RE ALL GREEDY”

    Aren’t we all. The joy of being capitalists!

  35. FinFan68 says: May 16, 2011 8:06 PM

    dwoofer says:
    May 16, 2011 7:44 PM
    If the players will hang in there and practice long-tested strike tactics, they can succeed where a fancy lawsuit fails. Refuse to play, put financial pressure on the owners, and see who blinks first. When the first week of the season rolls around and the owners are not getting those mega-millions in merchandise sales, ticket revenues (especially the pre-season gates), and TV money, they will be willing to talk.
    —————————–
    Isn’t that the strategy that pro-player folks have been blasting the owners for? Is the work stoppage more palatable for you if it was called a strike?

  36. cletusvandam says: May 16, 2011 8:07 PM

    I hope the players are finally ready to negotiate. The last time the owners made an offer the players did this sham decertification thing and sued.
    Negotiate!! Make a counter offer!!

  37. 2009kenny says: May 16, 2011 8:09 PM

    Wow, profootballtalk. When it seemed the players had the advantage, you were pushing the owners to make concessions. Now the owners have the edge, you still want them to make concessions? Anyway, you’ve never been fair

  38. duanethomas says: May 16, 2011 8:10 PM

    Well well…the players need to get the best deal possible and get the season started. Bottomline. The owners have the leverage now and I’ve always said whoever got the leverage would win.

  39. clownburger says: May 16, 2011 8:18 PM

    Seems to me like the NFL has been trying to get something done the whole time.

    IF the players are finally serious about working something out a deal will be worked out soon!

    Sorry to have to break that news to you PFT! We know you want the players to drag this out until the fall.

  40. nflfan101 says: May 16, 2011 8:23 PM

    PFT says: “… Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.”

    “We doubt that will happen, but we’d love for the NFL to prove us wrong.”

    ————————-

    Wow! And PFT really thinks it is not biased? BS

    If the owners really wanted to screw the players, they would not have agreed to the 2006 CBA. From history and what I see of their current actions, the owners just want a fair deal.

    S. Smith does not want a fair deal, he just wants what he wants and it does not matter if it is fair to owners or players. In fact he has tried to kill the current NFL model.

    FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, did not attend at least one of the court ordered mediation sessions, and now does not encourage any players to attend mediation.

    Fans, players, and PFT employees that really want football need to tell D. Smith to get his butt into negotiations.

  41. oreo51 says: May 16, 2011 8:31 PM

    The players union decertified and sued. They didn’t want fairness. Male the NFLPA pound sand.

  42. topshelf1988 says: May 16, 2011 8:35 PM

    The collective IQ of the you people leaving comments here is ZERO. The Owners won nothing here, just like the players won nothing on April 27th. Nothing from the original ruling matters, just like this ruling doesn’t matter. All of these decisions will ultimately get appealed to a higher court until one side has exhausted it’s ability to appeal any more. This is how the court system works in this country.
    The only way to move forward would be to have fair, reasonable negotiation and that can’t happen with one or both sides unwilling to do so.

  43. disapointeddallasfan says: May 16, 2011 8:50 PM

    Anyone know how the judges voted?

  44. willycents says: May 16, 2011 9:01 PM

    disapointeddallasfan says:May 16, 2011 8:50 PM

    Anyone know how the judges voted?
    ———————————————

    my local sportcaster said it was unanimous, for what that is worth…lol….

  45. joe6606 says: May 16, 2011 9:19 PM

    Anyone know how the judges voted?
    ———————————————

    my local sportcaster said it was unanimous, for what that is worth…lol….

    ———————————————-
    It was 2-1, same as the initial stay vote.

    Just read the decision. Pretty horrendous legal analysis by the majority activist judges. They didnt cite a single example of how exactly the owners would suffer “irreparable harm” if the lockout were lifted, yet used that as a basis for sustaining the lockout.

    Very embarassing example of political idealism getting in the way of valid legal interpretation.

    /sigh.

  46. t1mmy10 says: May 16, 2011 9:20 PM

    and the plot thickens

  47. snnyjcbs says: May 16, 2011 9:27 PM

    And when you were spouting off to the World just what a huge win the players had won with the Lower Court. I told you that it was minor and that the order would be stayed and the NFL would win at the next level.

  48. commoncents says: May 16, 2011 9:27 PM

    Hey FLO-Mo, why can’t you ever ask the PA if they can try to meet the owners, rather what the owners should do. Biased still, even with your tail between your legs.

  49. jethro007 says: May 16, 2011 9:30 PM

    billybats says:
    May 16, 2011 7:51 PM
    I seem to remember that after Judge Nelson issued her injunction removing the lockout, “Judge MF” wrote a long article taking the NFL to task for its litigation strategy, as if Nelson was the last word.

    I wonder, will we be seeing a piece soon ripping De “Jackie Chiles” Smith for his outrageously bad decision to pursue litigation instead of negotiating with the league?

    Or are you going to pretend that you didn’t obviously take the players’ side and hope that no one notices?

    2009kenny says:
    May 16, 2011 8:09 PM
    Wow, profootballtalk. When it seemed the players had the advantage, you were pushing the owners to make concessions. Now the owners have the edge, you still want them to make concessions? Anyway, you’ve never been fair.

    Two on the nose observations!

  50. oreo51 says: May 16, 2011 9:31 PM

    The vote was 2 to 1. The liberal judge continued to vote for the players.

  51. indianajet says: May 16, 2011 9:35 PM

    Read the whole decision and as a lawyer I can sum this up pretty quickly:

    The Court of Appeals just b!tch slapped that stupid hat right off of Tweedle DeMaurice’s head!

    Hahahahahahaha!

  52. disapointeddallasfan says: May 16, 2011 9:42 PM

    Oreo, Joe, Willie:

    Thanks for the response….exactly what I was wondering about whether or not it fell down party lines.
    Sad….would have been if it was political in the players favor as well. I hate judicial activism regardless of the outcome.

    Let’s all hope the league takes the high rd now and doesn’t flex the muscle it just earned and is sincere about wanting to negotiate a “fair” deal

    The players would b very wise to come to the table now IMO

  53. topshelf1988 says: May 16, 2011 9:49 PM

    And 2 Conservatives continued to vote for the job creating business owners. Except the owners are killing jobs here but let’s not let common sense and facts get in the way. Most have their minds made up without knowing a single thing and that’s who votes in this country. Uninformed morons, unwilling to learn anything because they already know everything. WAKE UP !!!!

  54. raidersnation84 says: May 16, 2011 9:57 PM

    Way to go NFL owners, your greed is continuing to alienate the most loyal fan base in all of professional sports. I can no longer afford to take my family of 4 (including myself) to a game due to the ticket prices spiking every year. The least valued team in the NFL is valued in excess of $750 million which would rank as the 4th highest MLB club, and they seem to be doing just fine. Not that I completely empathize with the players, but they ARE the product, and without them there are no millions, so they do deserve the higher percentage in the CBA. Don’t get me wrong, I want a football season just as much as the next person, but I think i’ll be enjoying the games from the comfort of my couch, with my 50″ flat screen, and my 12 pack of Heinekin, instead of paying 10 bucks for a skunk beer. Lets go owners, take your head out of your bidet cleaned asses.

  55. oldhamletman says: May 16, 2011 10:11 PM

    in what way are the Owners not acting like grownups?

    – they were at the table, the players left
    – they said they wanted to mediate, the players dissolved the union to avoid CBA law
    – they said they wanted to talk, the players sued
    – they locked out to answer the suit, the Players said ‘we aren’t a union, but we want to be protected from lockout like a union is”

    the players want their cake and to eat it too and you call the other guys immature? please….

  56. txchief says: May 16, 2011 10:24 PM

    I think it’s hilarious that the pro-union idiots on this forum think the multimillionaire playas have anything in common with them or sympathy for them.

  57. topshelf1988 says: May 16, 2011 10:43 PM

    Can anyone, anyone please explain how the players got us here? Explain how they are greedy and only their greed got us here?
    How are the players being brats? What is their place?
    Do you people realize how much you sound like total jackasses?
    The successful win – as they should. WTF
    You people are ridiculous!!!

  58. camp69 says: May 16, 2011 10:47 PM

    This ruling is not the hammer some of you think it is. The big one is the Brady etal case that will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court. Brady etal is really what will force a fair CBA. The lockout will be powerless if the Owners are forced to split the TV lockout fund with the players by Judge Doty. Also, if the Owners try to force a bad deal down the players throat, the NFLPA* can strike. The players do not have to unionized to strike, wildcat strikes are effective.

  59. willycents says: May 16, 2011 10:48 PM

    @raidersnation84
    And, with an annual salary inflation rate of 15%, precisely why do you think your ticket prices, etc, are going up?
    Take a look at the GB Packers financials. $5M in profit. At the current rate of inflation of player salaries, GB will be in the red this year. What can they do? Raise ticket prices and stadium pricing to make up the shortfall. In order to maintain the $5M profit margin, since salaries are 59.6% of revenues, revenues must increase algebraically to cover that allotment to the players.

  60. amr71 says: May 16, 2011 10:52 PM

    Why do you think it costs so much to go to a football game? You have to cover the players’ salaries somehow. Put the blame where it belongs. The players are bankrupting the league. Like it or not, the owners are looking out for the long-term financial health of the NFL. The players are just trying to grab what they can, when they can, with no regard for what it means to the league in the long term.

    It’s about time someone smacked the players down. They’re employees, not partners, and they need to start acting like it.

  61. diehardskinsfan21 says: May 16, 2011 10:55 PM

    How a judge, or a panel of judges could rule in favor of the owners and NFL is beyond me. These “men/owners” claim that many of them are losing money. Last I looked the owners with the least amount of money is the Rooneys, and I don’t heat them crying about how much money they are raking in. These extremely rich man are beyond greedy, and if they don’t want to allow these MEN to play then F them. I hope the players have the gumption to sit out, and can make these a-holes pay through the wahzoo.

    DOWN WITH THE OWNERS!

  62. wtfru2 says: May 16, 2011 11:07 PM

    As Cheech and Chong would say……………….Dave?Dave? Dave’s not here..

  63. hkirch says: May 16, 2011 11:10 PM

    see this is the type of story that has news value!
    Thanks
    see comment on you later post on this issue.

  64. FinFan68 says: May 16, 2011 11:18 PM

    raidersnation84 says:
    May 16, 2011 9:57 PM
    Way to go NFL owners, your greed is continuing to alienate the most loyal fan base in all of professional sports. I can no longer afford to take my family of 4 (including myself) to a game due to the ticket prices spiking every year…
    ———————-
    What the hell does this rant have to do with this story? Your ticket prices have nothing to do with greed. Blame the guys sitting next to you for that. The prices are that high because people pay them; if not you, the next guy in line will. These players are not really the product. The league, teams and game itself are the product. These players will all eventually be replaced just as their predecessors were. If your logic were true there would not have been football after the first group of players (product) left several decades ago.

  65. valman61 says: May 16, 2011 11:48 PM

    topshelf1988 | May 16, 2011, 8:35 PM EDT
    The collective IQ of the you people leaving comments here is ZERO. The Owners won nothing here, just like the players won nothing on April 27th. Nothing from the original ruling matters, just like this ruling doesn’t matter. All of these decisions will ultimately get appealed to a higher court until one side has exhausted it’s ability to appeal any more. This is how the court system works in this country.
    The only way to move forward would be to have fair, reasonable negotiation and that can’t happen with one or both sides unwilling to do so.
    ————————————————————————-

    Since you think you’re smarter then the rest of us, I’ll leave this response short under the assumption that you will either understand or research until you do.

    It’s called leverage. The side that has it, has the upper hand in negotiating. The side that doesn’t, has to decide either to negotiate now under pressure or forecast a more favorable scenario to negotiate in the future. Please get a clue before solving the great pft stupid comments debate. Also, please learn how to write a sentence in English without grammatical errors and what ever it is you did in your post above. Thanks

    (assuming neither side actually wants the Brady suit to actually prevail, because as a smart guy commenting about the actions of people supposedly smarter then me, i think everyone knows it will destroy our game as fast as exceeding the debt limit will destroy our economy)

  66. weneedlinemen42 says: May 17, 2011 5:42 AM

    Unfortunately the players seem to think that a fair deal means one in which the owner’s make all of the concessions.

    There is no doubt that the players got a raw deal, prior to free agency. The ’82 and ’87 strikes were entirely appropriate. The problem is that they are accustomed to getting more and more with each deal.

    At first this was merely helping to right the massive inbalance towards the owners: now it has gone too far the other way. Unless the players accept that fair goes both ways; that the partnership they talk about actually requires both sides to make concessions then there will be no possibility of progress.

  67. muhangis says: May 17, 2011 6:56 AM

    valman61 says:
    “Since you think you’re smarter then the rest of us, I’ll leave this response short under the assumption that you will either understand or research until you do.

    It’s called leverage. The side that has it, has the upper hand in negotiating. The side that doesn’t, has to decide either to negotiate now under pressure or forecast a more favorable scenario…………” blah fu¢k!n blah.

    Listen to yourself Valman. You play a prototypical hypocrite!

  68. truthserum4u says: May 17, 2011 8:26 AM

    moggy6actual, readimgram1, valman61 (7:57 PM post)

    Well said!

    ————————————-

    @ diehardskinsfan21 –

    The owners have never said or claimed they are losing money. They’ve said their profit margin is decreasing each year. There is a significant difference between the two. The owners are saying this trend will be harmful to the long term outlook of the league, as it would in any business.

  69. raidersnation84 says: May 17, 2011 8:27 AM

    @willycents

    That makes complete sense, but all I’m saying is, in an economy where I can barely afford to pay all my bills, owners, and players for that matter should take into account that outside thy’re world of professional sports, this country is in a constant struggle to put food on the table, and we are the ones paying the salaries. I just simply can’t afford to attend anymore, I can’t speak for you, but my salary hasn’t inflated at all in the past 2 years, I suppose yours has and you plan to keep attending these games, when I simply will watch from home.

  70. ntr0py says: May 17, 2011 10:27 AM

    What Mike has written here is wrong. If the Norris-LaGuardia Act applies, irreperable harm becomes largely irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

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