Skip to content

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like

MootFestival-01

One of the best things about doing radio spots is that the discussion often gives me the kind of clarity that merely sitting at the keyboard doesn’t.  That’s exactly what happened earlier today, when I chatted with Howard Balzer of 101 ESPN in St. Louis.

With Judge Kermit Bye strongly suggesting that neither side will like the ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit renders and with NFL lawyer Paul Clement being peppered with questions about the possibility that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the discussion with Balzer has helped me finally figure out how precisely how the Eighth Circuit could issue a decision that no one likes.

First, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents courts from issuing injunctions aimed at ending any lockout or strike arising from a “labor dispute,” with that term being given a broad interpretation that would apply even after the decertification of a union, legitimate or sham.  This would allow the current lockout to proceed, indefinitely.

Second, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the CBA, given the specific term in the expired labor deal requiring the players to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit.  Given the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this wouldn’t end the lockout as of September 11, the day on which the first slate of Sunday games are due to be played.  However, it would expose the NFL to treble damages beginning with Week One of the regular season, if the lockout ultimately is determined to be an antitrust violation as of September 11.

Thus, the owners would be able to lock the players out for all of the 2011 season, but the owners would ultimately be responsible for the full player payroll in 2011, times three.  That’s an amount that easily would exceed $10 billion.

Such an outcome would place significant pressure on both sides.  Though the players possibly would eventually get paid — three times over — for the money lost via the loss of a full season, the promise of treble damages won’t make a single mortgage payment for any of them in 2011.  It also won’t replace something far more important to high-level players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, who don’t need the money but who crave more Super Bowl rings.

It still makes far more sense for the parties to control their mutual destiny and reach a deal before the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling, given the chance that the ruling actually will be something that one side really likes — and that the other side really hates.

Permalink 65 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
65 Responses to “How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like”
  1. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: Jun 5, 2011 1:39 PM

    What? The whole thing so far is that the players would lose money. That’s the one major argument that’s been used to say they will cave in. If they will get paid 3x as much as usual, they will be able to survive no problem. The coaches will care more that they will be much worse after a year off, and the owners will have to deal with them as well, while losing all that money. This deal would clearly benefit the players in a big way.

  2. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: Jun 5, 2011 1:41 PM

    Ok, so I now see they don’t get paid until later, but won’t they easily be able to loan money out then?

  3. jbcommonsense says: Jun 5, 2011 1:42 PM

    I would love a ruling like that.

  4. jimmysee says: Jun 5, 2011 1:45 PM

    anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says:
    Jun 5, 2011 1:39 PM
    What? The whole thing so far is that the players would lose money. That’s the one major argument that’s been used to say they will cave in. If they will get paid 3x as much as usual, they will be able to survive no problem.

    ————————————————

    There’s no certainty in litigation. The players might lose.

    That’s a huge risk.

  5. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 1:48 PM

    Whatever. Even I’m tired of the b.s. Put the ego’s and lawyers aside and get a deal done.

  6. hawkdawg88 says: Jun 5, 2011 1:50 PM

    That assumes the players will win the antitrust case. They might lose it. Big gamble.

  7. myballsmyrules says: Jun 5, 2011 1:52 PM

    All the players have to do is negotiate. It’s not that hard folks.

    duanethomas
    tommyf15
    jakeke
    paperlions

    Go tell DEmoron to sit down and negotiate.
    Don’t you guys want to play football instead of coming here daily and putting on an act?

  8. hobartbaker says: Jun 5, 2011 1:52 PM

    “The Court finds the defendants and the plaintiffs both guilty. You will be held in contempt for life and a day. May God have mercy on your souls.”.

  9. ktcmoving says: Jun 5, 2011 1:53 PM

    So in other words, if the ruling described above happens:

    The players will make a fortune if the anti-trust case goes in their favour…

    … Providing they can hold out long enough to see the case through.

  10. raidermike says: Jun 5, 2011 1:58 PM

    Any ruling that will cause the whiney greedy money hungry players to have to crumble under the weight of D’bag Smith’s ignorance and stupidity if fine with me. Why do the players feel entitled to splitting owner’s revenue ????? How about shutting up and being glad you can play a game for millions of dollars a year because the OWNER of an NFL franchise (who paid millions for the team) gave you the rare opportunity to play a game for lots of money and if not for that you’d be asking “paper or plastic” because you never graduated from college with that FREE college scholarship they gave you to PLAY A GAME. Players — STFU and play. Player’s think they are “special” and they are the “reason the game exists” WRONG !! It’s not at all about you. There’s 1,760 footballers out there ready to jump into your shoes to be called the best football players on the planet — be glad you can make your millions and deep-six D-bag play some football.

  11. qj1984 says: Jun 5, 2011 1:59 PM

    @anonymouslyanonymouscommentor

    I think you really missed the point. These guys have bills to pay NOW, they have children to take care of NOW. Sure its nice to have a nice lump sum of money come once the litigation ends, which could take years, but most of the players cant survive without an income coming in anymore than you or I could.

    If I had to wait until next year to get my pay check times 3, I’d be happy as hell with the times 3 but I’d have lost my house, my car, and I’d probably be on some type of public assistance to feed my family during that time. Its the same thing for most of these players.

  12. jtfris says: Jun 5, 2011 2:01 PM

    This makes sense. The owners are unlikely to be on winning the case outright in this scenario. Unless the owners feel very strongly about their anti-trust case they would be apt to cut a deal.

    The players, as we all know, need to buy jewelry and rims so they will be back to work as quickly as possible. (Carson Palmer and that 2% of like players excluded)

  13. qj1984 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:02 PM

    anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: Jun 5, 2011 1:41 PM

    Ok, so I now see they don’t get paid until later, but won’t they easily be able to loan money out then?

    ______________________________________

    Some of them probably could, namely the ones who dont need to. The economy is going to impact these guys getting loans as much as it does the normal American. PFT had articles posted about how some of these guys were resorting to loans with 23% percent interest rates. Thats crazy. Not to mention the rookies just coming out of college probably have no credit history or a bad credit history and dont qualify for a loan.

  14. waccoforflacco says: Jun 5, 2011 2:06 PM

    I would love to see them shut it down for a year. All the fans would get all their season ticket money back and the game would fold like the NHL did and the current wage system would collapse like a bag of air. No way the players could claim the owners are making tons of money and the league couldn’t afford the triple damages and would declare itself bankrupt. So where do the players get their money from then?

  15. hedleykow says: Jun 5, 2011 2:10 PM

    I’d take a year off work for a 50/50 chance of receiving 3X my normal pay (while enjoying a year long vacation.)

    Isn’t that sort of a no-brainer? What am I missing here?

  16. mathsimillion says: Jun 5, 2011 2:14 PM

    I imagine since both parties are playing hardball here with the players main kryptonite being missing game checks, getting paid 3X the amount for missing the season gives them more leverage to twist the league’s arm for the best possible deal. I’m not sure that is a ruling the players won’t like. At least not as much as the owner’s won’t like it.

    Sure the players would rather have a season and would prefer that but if they can get the deal they want, they’ve already shown that they are willing to miss a season for it. How would it be bad if they got paid to do what they were already willing to do?

  17. eaglescouch says: Jun 5, 2011 2:16 PM

    My head hurts from all this garbage.

  18. clownburger says: Jun 5, 2011 2:18 PM

    The Players Suck.

    NEGOTIATE!

  19. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:27 PM

    myballsmyrules says:
    All the players have to do is negotiate. It’s not that hard folks.

    duanethomas
    tommyf15
    jakeke
    paperlions

    Go tell DEmoron to sit down and negotiate.
    Don’t you guys want to play football instead of coming here daily and putting on an act?

    Do us all a favor and stop being stupid.

    One doesn’t have to be an NFL player to understand that the issues are more complex than “negotiate, and go gidder’ done”.

    For the millionth time, the players do not want to collectively bargain with an owners’ union. They want to individually bargain with the individual teams. .

    And like it or not, they have the right.

  20. saintsfan1111 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:29 PM

    Here’s a fun idea. Players should start their own league. The owners would crack for sure. Imagine for Jerry Jones with no team for JerryWorld. LOL.

  21. kcfanatic says: Jun 5, 2011 2:30 PM

    Just because you win a case and are awarded damages doesn’t mean that you collect. There 20-30 millions dollar judgements quite often. Then the Losing side ties it up in courts and still doesn’t have to pay. Many times a $30 Million judgement ends up being $5-15 Million settlement with the lawyers getting 1/3. So…a $10 Billion judgement(if the players won) would likely settle around $4billion once it was all said and done. $3.5 would be left after the lawyer’s take. Then, the NFL would take about 2-3 years to pay it.

    I see this as a scenario that everyone loses, but the lawyers. Which is why the lawyers have talked everyone out of settling so far.

  22. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:34 PM

    waccoforflacco says:
    I would love to see them shut it down for a year. All the fans would get all their season ticket money back and the game would fold like the NHL did and the current wage system would collapse like a bag of air. No way the players could claim the owners are making tons of money and the league couldn’t afford the triple damages and would declare itself bankrupt. So where do the players get their money from then?

    Delusional.

    The NHL didn’t fold. It’s actually stronger than ever. The average worth of an NHL team has risen by 23% since the lockout ended.

    The “league” couldn’t fold. In theory the individual teams could fold, but if the owners couldn’t afford to pay treble damages, they’d be forced to sell all or a part of their teams and use those funds to pay the debts. We’re pretty much seeing that now in baseball with the Dodgers and the Mets.

  23. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 5, 2011 2:38 PM

    @ hedleykow

    The owners are more desperate for a deal than the players are. That’s why De Smith has come out and said we don’t need to be a union. The players have been in the driver’s seat since day one. The players can’t lose what they don’t have, which is nothing. It’s not a coincidence that season tickets are up from last year. It’s all about paying for stadiums no one wanted. In fact, I’m pretty sure the owners will find a way to do a full training camp. Training camp = $$$.

  24. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 5, 2011 2:41 PM

    @waccoforflacco

    What makes you think the owners will refund the money? They can just say there’s going to be football next season and you’ve already paid for it.

  25. jacksaysfu says: Jun 5, 2011 2:42 PM

    The greed of everyone involved is insane . Let the players keep their 50% , but give the owners 18 games. More profit and I wont cry over watching more football . U can expand the rosters to 60 (53active) . You just made millions and created 224 more jobs . And all you ego maniacs can preavh how your side won . NFL (No F###ing Logic)

  26. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 2:47 PM

    raidermike says:
    Jun 5, 2011 1:58 PM
    Any ruling that will cause the whiney greedy money hungry players to have to crumble under the weight of D’bag Smith’s ignorance and stupidity if fine with me. Why do the players feel entitled to splitting owner’s revenue ????? How about shutting up and being glad you can play a game for millions of dollars a year because the OWNER of an NFL franchise (who paid millions for the team) gave you the rare opportunity to play a game for lots of money and if not for that you’d be asking “paper or plastic” because you never graduated from college with that FREE college scholarship they gave you to PLAY A GAME. Players — STFU and play. Player’s think they are “special” and they are the “reason the game exists” WRONG !! It’s not at all about you. There’s 1,760 footballers out there ready to jump into your shoes to be called the best football players on the planet — be glad you can make your millions and deep-six D-bag play some football.

    You need to calm down dude, and quit making irrational and plain stupid statements. Paper or Plastic??? Never graduated fron college??? 1,760 replacements right? Whats next? Shut the league down? Bring on the scabs? You can”t go in your bosse’s office and demand a share of the profits??? Here’s a suggestion to all you anti-player morons….when the game comes back DON’T Watch! Because its going to be the same “whiney greedy money hungry players” out there. You will be back “raidermike” you’re part of that EastBay grease that paints your face silver and black and goes to that dump to see the Raiders lose. 28 years and counting since your last championship.

  27. Patriot42 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:50 PM

    Lawyers will be the ruin of this country. They have caused more harm then help.

  28. jacksaysfu says: Jun 5, 2011 2:53 PM

    the lawyers are winning more than charlie sheen … Negotiate , duh !

  29. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 2:57 PM

    myballsmyrules says:
    Jun 5, 2011 1:52 PM
    All the players have to do is negotiate. It’s not that hard folks.

    duanethomas
    tommyf15
    jakeke
    paperlions

    Go tell DEmoron to sit down and negotiate.
    Don’t you guys want to play football instead of coming here daily and putting on an act?

    Here we go…smh. A deal is close since the owners have finally gotten serious. Despite what Kurt Warner said the owners are the ones making concessions. Why? They have to service that debt on those stadiums. You think Jerry wants to miss games and have his BOSS HOGG stadium sitting empty? Fat Chance. I know this…they better keep the concessions coming or there will be no 2011 season. DeMaurice Smith hsa 90% of the players prepared and willing to sit this season out.

  30. redrew says: Jun 5, 2011 2:59 PM

    Tripal my salry……I hittin da clubs on S Beatch as we’d speak. Ray Ray OUT!

  31. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 3:11 PM

    raidermike says:
    Why do the players feel entitled to splitting owner’s revenue ?????

    The players don’t WANT to share the owners revenues.

    That was the OWNERS idea from the start.

    The players are suing so that they DON’T HAVE TO share revenues. They prefer a free market system, and are fighting to get one.

    The owners are desperately fighting to CONTINUE sharing revenues.

    Get it through your head.

  32. andyreidisfat says: Jun 5, 2011 3:13 PM

    raidermike says:
    Jun 5, 2011 1:58 PM
    Any ruling that will cause the whiney greedy money hungry players to have to crumble under the weight of D’bag Smith’s ignorance and stupidity if fine with me. Why do the players feel entitled to splitting owner’s revenue ????? How about shutting up and being glad you can play a game for millions of dollars a year because the OWNER of an NFL franchise (who paid millions for the team) gave you the rare opportunity to play a game for lots of money and if not for that you’d be asking “paper or plastic” because you never graduated from college with that FREE college scholarship they gave you to PLAY A GAME. Players — STFU and play. Player’s think they are “special” and they are the “reason the game exists” WRONG !! It’s not at all about you. There’s 1,760 footballers out there ready to jump into your shoes to be called the best football players on the planet — be glad you can make your millions and deep-six D-bag play some football.

    lol ….. Whaaaaaaaa !!!!! The rich guys get paid more than I do to do a job thats better than mine whaaaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaa

    God I hate when morons who have crappy lives say that about people. Hell I hate my job too bud, but I don’t attack other because of it. Also If you knew anything or had the ability to think with your brain… You would understand that with out the players there would be no NFL. Its quite simple. Ask yourself this. If all the players in the NFL decided to quit the NFL and go play for the other pro league. They played for small contracts the first two years. By the end of that Two year period, what Football league would you be watching ??? Here’s a clue… There would be no NFL anymore at that point. So I wouldn’t say they feel “entitled” to split the take. I would rather say they they earned it.

    Now as far as these guys being “lucky” ?? Really ?? You mean training your self for 17 years to become a machine. Risking injury and or even early death. Oh and most of these men are really smart. In fact most of these guys do graduate college even if they don’t finish in early 20′s. In fact I would say you sound a lot like an pissed off loser who is still mad because he got cut in middle school.

  33. patsandsox says: Jun 5, 2011 3:18 PM

    The owners broke the old contract they wanted a better deal but then they asked for too much.

    Its so obvious that no one would want to give back money they were promised in a contract so I can understand the players side.

    BUT they do need to come meet the owners half way. Just split the difference they are arguing about and let the owners have the stupid 18 game season so they can make two games more of money.
    I hate strikes and lockouts just play the damn game

  34. heroofthisparish says: Jun 5, 2011 3:21 PM

    Ok, so I now see they don’t get paid until later, but won’t they easily be able to loan money out then?
    _____________________________________

    Easy for the top players, but the majority of players might not make the roster next year or don’t have a contract right now. Zero earnings trebled is still zero. How do you borrow against that prospect?

    And this is underpinned by a pressumption that an anti-trust case can be made out. Expected outcomes in court should not be relied upon; how is the lockout injunction working out so far for the players?

  35. harmcityhomer says: Jun 5, 2011 3:28 PM

    The owners are not going to break the players with a lockout that can last at most 1 year and most likely just 6 months.

    If they want the players to reform the union and accept a CBA, they need to make an offer they are willing to accept, or accept the fact the players decertified and just play free market pro football.

    Anti trust protection is a privalege not a right.

  36. hail2tharedskins says: Jun 5, 2011 3:29 PM

    Just a note on those treble damages in the event of a lockout that runs afoul of the anti-trust laws… free agents and rookies wouldn’t get a dime. I don’t feel like doing the math, but I don’t think the damages would quite reach $10bln either, I think you are factoring in a full roster payroll but the league would probably be closer 70% of their payroll because no rookies and free agents would be under contract.

    But I do agree after listening to the hearing that is a very strong possible outcome. I will however note that Judge Bye did not say they would issue a ruling that neither party would like as it was first reported, he said that it was possible they could issue a ruling that neither party would like and it was not in a threatening tone but more of a matter of fact tone. He was certainly encouraging the sides to reach an agreement on their own but I do not believe he was hinting at any potential ruling they would be issuing.

  37. hail2tharedskins says: Jun 5, 2011 3:30 PM

    I need to make a stipulation on first paragraph above. I am not stating that as a fact but more of question and after reading it sounds more like I am stating fact – very poorly written.

  38. myballsmyrules says: Jun 5, 2011 3:34 PM

    @duanethomas

    Dude, you are seriously delusional if you think the owners can’t handle a year off financially. Don’t you realize these group of billionaires have other businesses that bring in income? The teams are not their only source of income.

    However, for the majority of players, football paychecks ARE their only source of income.

    So if DEmoron has his players prepared to sit out a season as you claim, then they all are stupid. Trust me, the owners are very VERY much more prepared to lose some income from football business and write off ther losses on taxes. The players will be losing homes and cars, have child supoort agencies breathing down their necks, baby mamas filing suits and taking out 24% loans.

    Good Luck.

  39. ubummer says: Jun 5, 2011 3:49 PM

    For those players who are under contract but locked out, does that mean they will be eligible for unemployment compensation?

  40. bobbyhoying says: Jun 5, 2011 3:55 PM

    Trebble damages would collapse the league. Good for current guys. End of NFL.

  41. vetdana says: Jun 5, 2011 4:03 PM

    Just because you are awarded a settlement is NO Guarantee that you will collect a dime ! Other posters have agreed that there are many suits outstanding with hugh awards, and no payment being made.To many things can happen to Stop the award payments ! The players have to win the Antitrust case first.Far to risky….better to make a deal !

  42. atwatercrushesokoye says: Jun 5, 2011 4:17 PM

    Tommyf: With the logic you’re using there would be problems for the players. A free market system would be great for players 1-15 on every roster, but if you believe that players 30-53 will be making anything close to the present minimum salary you’re dilusional!

    Teams aren’t going to pay big money for special teams players, and if those players don’t want to make $50k a year that’s fine, every year there are plenty of capable football players not playing in the NFL, teams will give those players a shot instead. You can also say goodbye to the 53 man roster, I’m sure several teams will be using 40-45 players to keep costs down. And the practice squad?! Doesn’t exist anymore…I’m sure all of those players losing jobs are very excited for your free market system!

    I also don’t see players getting as much time off in the offseason as they do now. Team goes 1-15? Well for those players not fired I’m sure offseason practices will start right after the season ends…after all the team needs to get better, luckily the teams won’t have that pesky CBA to tell them that they can’t start offseason training January 15th!

    The players need to be careful what they wish for, do they really think that a “free market system” is going to lead to some panacea where they keep everything the currently have and get more?

  43. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 4:29 PM

    vetdana says:
    Just because you are awarded a settlement is NO Guarantee that you will collect a dime ! Other posters have agreed that there are many suits outstanding with hugh awards, and no payment being made.To many things can happen to Stop the award payments !

    That’s not a reasonable comparison. If someone were to successfully sue me for a million dollars, they’d never collect- I don’t have a million dollars.

    If someone successfully sued me for $100,000, I might declare bankruptcy, since I don’t have 100K in assets and the ones I have (condo, car) are protected by bankruptcy laws.

    If someone successfully sued me for 5,000, I might skip town.

    None of these scenarios are are even remote possibilities for the NFL owners. If they lose the suit, they’d eventually have to pay up.

  44. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 4:38 PM

    bobbyhoying says:
    Trebble damages would collapse the league. Good for current guys. End of NFL.

    And to think, all the Owners Union needs to do to avoid that is to end the lockout and abide by anti-trust regulation.

    Not that a reasonable person would think a successful suit by the players could kill the NFL. The sky is always falling when the owners don’t get everything they want.

  45. Deb says: Jun 5, 2011 4:38 PM

    tommyf15 says:

    Do us all a favor and stop being stupid.

    One doesn’t have to be an NFL player to understand that the issues are more complex than “negotiate, and go gidder’ done”.

    Thank you. Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

    I’m so tired of reading comments from people who do nothing but ridicule De Smith and chant “counteroffer … counteroffer … counteroffer” as though that would have solved everything.

  46. dkrause71 says: Jun 5, 2011 4:41 PM

    Ask yourself this. If all the players in the NFL decided to quit the NFL and go play for the other pro league. They played for small contracts the first two years. By the end of that Two year period, what Football league would you be watching ??? Here’s a clue… There would be no NFL anymore at that point. So I wouldn’t say they feel “entitled” to split the take. I would rather say they they earned it.
    ————————————————–

    You would be watching the NFL most likely. The NFL team names carry value. The fact the NFL holds venues worthy of professional football holds value. And most importantly, the NFL even without all the current players will still have the most money to pay the top college players to come join the NFL over this other league. That is not counting the players that would cross the picket line. Most players are not going to join your league and get paid crap for 2-3 seasons to prove a point.

    Where exactly does your other pro league plan to play its games? What channel will it be on? Who is providing the start up capital? And unless its the players providing start up capital- the players would then again have an owner. Who will set the rules? Who is going to coach a league run by the players? Its not as simple as lets take our ball and go play somewhere else. Brady is not going to play for 500K. Brady isn’t going to join a league were the rules involve him getting killed. Or on a subpar playing surface.

    Could the players form a league? Sure. It could pan out even but lets not be native enough to think its fool proof as you seem to think. The players are replaceable. All those guys you see in the draft each year are replacing current players. The NFL would be down, but very unlikely out even if all the players bailed.

  47. vahawker says: Jun 5, 2011 4:50 PM

    You need to calm down dude, and quit making irrational and plain stupid statements.
    *********************************************

    Irony, thy name is DeMornthomas

  48. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 4:54 PM

    myballsmyrules says:
    Jun 5, 2011 3:34 PM
    @duanethomas

    Dude, you are seriously delusional if you think the owners can’t handle a year off financially. Don’t you realize these group of billionaires have other businesses that bring in income? The teams are not their only source of income.

    Ok . Please name the other sources of income for the following owner.

    The Bidwells Cardinals
    Mike Brown Bengals
    Al Davis Raiders
    Dan Rooney Steelers
    The Yorks 49er’s
    Jim Irsay Colts

    Even the richest owners their overall wealth is tied to the value of their team.

    Jerry Jones is worth 1.5 billion. The Cowboys are valued at 1 Billion. Look whats happening to Dodgers and Mets and the billionaires that can no longer afford their teams. So NO they cant not afford to miss a year.

  49. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 5:05 PM

    atwatercrushesokoye says:
    Tommyf: With the logic you’re using there would be problems for the players. A free market system would be great for players 1-15 on every roster, but if you believe that players 30-53 will be making anything close to the present minimum salary you’re dilusional!

    I think it’s unlikely that the lower-tiered players will make less money. I’m not willing to state that as a fact, since the league and players would be sailing into uncharted waters. No one knows for sure what would happen, so let’s not pretend that we do.

    But even if it did happen, I’m fine with it, just as I’m fine with Cameron Diaz making ten thousand times more than the last person listed on the credits in her new movie. That’s the way the ball bounces in this here America.

  50. stevebuc says: Jun 5, 2011 5:13 PM

    What makes me sick over all of this is that the Owners are the greedy bastards not the players…Ask yourself what the owners really do for the money they make…NOTHING…When the players are 40 and can’t read “See Spot run” and make sense out of it, it all comes into focus…I would like to see the owners just once suit up and get on the field for 1 game and let a 300 pound player lower the boom on them…They might just give the players what they want and need(though I doubt it) because even though the players love the game it takes years out of their life and some are vegetables after retiring…

  51. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Jun 5, 2011 6:08 PM

    The lawsuits and appeals can last well into 2012 and beyond.

    No agreement through negotiation results in no NFL season for 2011.

  52. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 6:12 PM

    duanethomas says:
    Jerry Jones is worth 1.5 billion. The Cowboys are valued at 1 Billion. Look whats happening to Dodgers and Mets and the billionaires that can no longer afford their teams. So NO they cant not afford to miss a year.

    If the NHL owners could afford to miss a year (and still come out ahead), so can the NFL owners. The monetary value of the CBA the owners are seeking is likely greater than the prospect of losing a season. In the end the the lockout was worth it to the NHL owner,and the NFL owners seem to be emulating that strategy.

    Also wanted to point out that the financial hardships the Mets and Dodgers are enduring are not related to the baseball business itself.

  53. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 6:36 PM

    @tommyf15.

    I should have been more clear, not that they can’t afford to sit out a year, they just don’t want to. They don’t want to miss out on the revenue, which is why in 87 they hired replacement players…to keep the revenue flowing. The comparsion to the Mets and Dodgers is only to show, team owners wealth is very tenuous. So for a lot of them this other business crap in this economic environment is just that…crap. That’s why I believe a deal will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

  54. tommyf15 says: Jun 5, 2011 7:12 PM

    palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says:
    No agreement through negotiation results in no NFL season for 2011.

    That’s not true.

    There will be football this year if either:

    A: The court orders the owners to lift the lockout, or,

    B: The owners lift the lockout voluntarily and implement their own league rules.

  55. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 5, 2011 7:19 PM

    Wimpy’s interpretation:

    So they’ll have to give me three hamburgers on Tuesday but I won’t get one today…

    Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

  56. duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 9:14 PM

    tommyf15 says:
    Jun 5, 2011 7:12 PM

    That’s not true.

    There will be football this year if either:

    A: The court orders the owners to lift the lockout, or,

    B: The owners lift the lockout voluntarily and implement their own league rules.

    A. Doesn’t look very likely.

    B. Slim Possibility and if they did you will see their true colors. Last time they implemented their rules it was a disaster for the majority of players. Plan B free agency was their crown jewel, which only benefited fringe players and agents. This time if they did I come only imagine…………… so If there isn’t a deal there will be no season IMHO.

  57. vahawker says: Jun 5, 2011 9:26 PM

    duanethomas says: Jun 5, 2011 6:36 PM

    @tommyf15.

    I should have been more clear, not that they can’t afford to sit out a year, they just don’t want to. They don’t want to miss out on the revenue, which is why in 87 they hired replacement players…to keep the revenue flowing. The comparsion to the Mets and Dodgers is only to show, team owners wealth is very tenuous. So for a lot of them this other business crap in this economic environment is just that…crap. That’s why I believe a deal will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

    ****************************************

    Give you lots of crap, but this is a good post. Still think you are DeMoron though

  58. nflfan101 says: Jun 5, 2011 10:13 PM

    Folks, this whole post is based on what PFT assumes may happen based on what one judge said. And we all know what you do when you assume.

    We will know that negotiations are serious when we hear that the players (D. Smith) have made some concessions. Thus far, only the NFL has made concessions. At some point, the NFL will stop negotiating with itself. Otherwise, what is the point to this whole mess?

  59. apopnj says: Jun 5, 2011 10:15 PM

    You kind of wonder; do the lawyers want this to end and give up their cash cow? The longer it goes the bill hours are piling up and the lawyers have a smile from ear to ear.
    Lawyers = License to steal
    Do it the old fashioned way. Sit in a room and come up with a plan sans lawyers and shake on it like they did back in the day.
    Handshakes used to mean something until the lawyers ruined that too.

  60. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Jun 5, 2011 10:25 PM

    @ tommyf15 (or is it De Mo Reece?) says: Jun 5, 2011 7:12 PM

    Nope. You don’t get it.

    A. and B. don’t work.

    Tommy Brady’s complaint.

    Then multiple players sue as individuals.

    League can’t risk damages in the tens of billions. The owners will shut down for a year, or two, or five. Whatever it takes for the players to drop the legal complaints and agree to a new labor deal.

    Can you dig it baby?

    ~~~~~~
    palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says:
    No agreement through negotiation results in no NFL season for 2011.

    That’s not true.

    There will be football this year if either:

    A: The court orders the owners to lift the lockout, or,

    B: The owners lift the lockout voluntarily and implement their own league rules.

  61. stanklepoot says: Jun 5, 2011 11:50 PM

    hawkdawg88 says: Jun 5, 2011 1:50 PM

    That assumes the players will win the antitrust case. They might lose it. Big gamble.
    ______________________
    yes and no. If it’s decided eventually that it is an anti-trust issue and the case goes to court, there’s really very little chance the NFL could win. Most of what the league is designed to do technically violates anti-trust law. The biggest threat to the players would be the appeals process yet again. The damages could be reduced, but even worse, civil suits and appeals can be drug out for a long time if the defendant has enough resources. A lot of defendants who have a huge judgment against them end up paying a reduced amount after post-trial negotiations because the threat of dragging things out until the court forces them to finally pay is so real. The threat is rather simple and effective: settle at a lower number, or you won’t collect a penny until you’re on social security.

  62. mikeb4u says: Jun 5, 2011 11:55 PM

    What you are seeing is what you get when ambulance chasers take it to court. So, now the NFL is at the risk of treble antitrust damages after 6 months? That just might lead to disolving the league altogether. And that would mean football, as we know it, is done and over with because the stupid players want to file an anti trust suit against the league that made them rich–BOZOS. And, to decertify as a union, with intent to recertify later on, is a sham.

  63. tommyf15 says: Jun 6, 2011 12:32 AM

    palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says:
    Nope. You don’t get it.

    A. and B. don’t work.

    Tommy Brady’s complaint.

    Then multiple players sue as individuals.

    League can’t risk damages in the tens of billions. The owners will shut down for a year, or two, or five. Whatever it takes for the players to drop the legal complaints and agree to a new labor deal.

    Can you dig it baby?

    No, actually.

    Shutting down the league isn’t going to stop the Brady et al anti-trust suit. If the owners continue to lock the players out indefinitely (and they won’t) that will weaken the owners position in court.

    And remember- there’s nothing to stop the players as a trade association from accepting the owners’ last best offer. If the owners turned that down they’d obviously be negotiating in bad faith, which is a no-no in federally mediated talks.

  64. nmeagle33 says: Jun 6, 2011 8:49 AM

    PLAYERS WANT FREE MARKET?From what I’ve seen/read the Players are not open to a lower pay should there be a down turn. That’s part of it; players better be sure they want it.

    TALK TALK

  65. ntr0py says: Jun 6, 2011 4:39 PM

    Appellate courts normally avoid ruling on issues that have not yet been reached by the lower courts.

    If the eighth circuit rules that Norris-LaGuardia applies, they are not likely to make any other rulings. The NFL will have to realize, on its own, that losing games because of the lockout could result in treble damages. I suspect that they DO understand this (and anyway, it is the supreme court that will ultimately determine this issue).

Leave a Reply

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