8th Circuit Court Upholds Stay On Appeal; League Makes New Offer
After weeks of inactivity, there was a flurry of movement on the NFL labor front late Monday afternoon and evening.
By PackerAaron
A lot of activity tonight on the NFL labor front.
First of all, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a permanent stay of the league's lockout of its players, meaning the lockout will stay in place at least until the first week of June when the first arguments are to be presented in the case, though a decision would most likely come many weeks after that.
Both the NFL and the former NFLPA released statements.
It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal labor law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation.
The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season. The court will hear the full appeal on June 3.
In reality, little has changed that wasn't in place his morning - save for one thing.
The way the ruling is written (you can read it here) hints - strongly - that the league will most likely win on appeal. This gives the league quite a bit of leverage in any negotiations it may engage in with the players.
On that front, it would seem the court-mandated mediated talks the league and the players entered into this morning, talks that few people thought would result in any substantive progress, could actually produce results. Indeed, Carl Eller, who is one of several people representing retired players in this process, said that the league was preparing a new offer to the players this evening. In fact, Judge Arthur Boyland extended mediation well into the night specifically so the owners could prepare the offer. This would be the first offer by either side since the offer the league made on March 11th before the players' union decertified and the league locked the players out.
While any sign of the two sides talking is encouraging, my biggest fear is that the owners will take the courts ruling today as an opportunity to wield a theoretical hammer - when what they should do is go back to the last offer they made, address the points the players have attacked in the press over the course of the last month, and try to massage them into a reasonable offer.
But with the likes of Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder at the helm, I'm not holding my breath.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (39)
May 16, 2011 at 07:42 pm
I'm not holding my breath either. If there's one thing I've learned it's that whoever has the power WILL abuse it.
May 16, 2011 at 07:50 pm
effin ass-wipe greedy bastard owners and goodell...shit...were trying to plan a trip to Green Bay in October, fukkkin greedy bastard owners...
May 16, 2011 at 08:15 pm
But how do you feel about the Owners?
May 16, 2011 at 10:21 pm
+1 lol
May 16, 2011 at 08:18 pm
My sources tell me a deal is imminent.
GBP 4 LIFE
May 17, 2011 at 01:15 pm
My sources say a deal should be done in the next ten years. My sources suck
May 17, 2011 at 04:01 pm
I've heard it on Sirius Radio that there won't be football in 2011.
/Peter King'd
May 16, 2011 at 08:19 pm
I'm all for the "effin' ass-wipe greedy bastard owners" if the hammer they are wielding continues the long-term viability and competitiveness of the Green Bay Packers. To me, that's all I care about in this dispute.
May 16, 2011 at 08:59 pm
This.
The beauty of it is, that's exactly how the Packers feel, too.
AS I've stated previously, It must really suck to be the Packers in all of this. Since there's no owner with any incentive to cut corners and make more profit, the ONLY concern the Packers have is their own long term sustainability.. Packers could care less if the Players took an extra Billion, so long as the Packers can continue to be viable..
May 16, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Amen, brother!
May 17, 2011 at 08:00 am
Agreed!
I would also like to be able to take my children to an NFL game fifteen years from now without taking out a mortgage on my house. Unfortunately that means the players have to loose this one.
Brett Favre thought he was not replaceable. He was wrong and so are the current players.
May 17, 2011 at 10:18 am
Well said Chris
maxginsberg
May 16, 2011 at 08:32 pm
Bring on the replacements!
I hear Sean Payton has been throwing with high schoolers in Mississippi, and he's ready to give it another shot.
May 16, 2011 at 09:02 pm
This is a lock out not a strike, there will be no replacements, but like I stated above, it will get done (could be june, could be 2014).
May 16, 2011 at 10:13 pm
What grinds my beans is the fact that there are other people afftected by this that have absolutely no representation nor say in the matter....the workers, the communities, the coaches, the trainers, etc.
Who is thinking of them? Who is standing up for their right to earn decent wage doing what they are employed to do, but now cannot, in some cases.
Add to that the greedy owners that are cutting wages even though they absolutely have the ability to sustain the pay grades. It begs the question, what owners are taking pay cuts?
I truly believe that harm to the quality of the game is and will be affected exponentially as this drags out over the summer.
Rooks can't get playbooks, FAs are in limbo, UFAs are spinning in the wind. Coaches aren't coaching and gameplans will suffer.
God...I'm depressed now. ;-/
May 16, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Money Quote "my biggest fear is that the owners will take the courts ruling today as an opportunity to wield a theoretical hammer"
This is EXACTLY what is going to happen. How much you wanna bet that the owners latest offer is worse than the one on 3.11? I was really hoping the players would win on 6.3.11, to even out the scales and thus provide the impetus on both sides to work out a deal. The owners would lose their leverage and the playing field would even out.
Not gonna happen now - and this lockout will drag on accordingly. CRAP!
May 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm
The NFLPA* should fire DeMaurice Smith as soon as the 8th Circuit Court renders its decision in favor of the NFL in June and elect a former player--NOT a litigator--to represent them in the talks with the owners.
Smith is a cancer.
May 17, 2011 at 06:16 am
Finnaly someone has hit on the real problem "Smith". This guy has had his own agenda from the beginning and it had nothing to do with reaching an agreement. He has led the players down a losing path and will not quit because of his personal agenda. Players need to dump this guy and fast.
May 16, 2011 at 11:01 pm
@Bearmeat
I feel like this IS the evening of the scales. The owners ended their refusal to talk in March when they made an offer which, if accepted, would have us in OTAs or at least off season workouts (not saying it is a good or bad offer, just that it exists). The players have not had the incentive to respond and could sit back and wait for better things to come as the legal victories consecutively built up. Now that the players have lost a battle, I think they will give up their refusal to talk as well. I am certainly with Aaron; if the owners overplay this and decide they don't need to talk, nothing is getting done. Doesn't sound that way to me up to now, though.
Small, belated aside: I would just like it noted that the opt out clause was collectively bargained. The players said "OK owners, you are allowed to opt out at time X". They are just playing by the rules they are given. If I were a Congressman who was also an a-hole and I was in a position to ask representatives of the players questions, my first one would be "Why did you allow the owners to opt out of this agreement?" My a-hole question to the owners? Probably something simple and uncreative like "Why is 4 billion dollars (or whatever amount) not enough when Americans are struggling to put food on the table?" though I think we can do better; your suggestions for Q's to the players and owners?
PackerAaron
May 16, 2011 at 11:11 pm
" I would just like it noted that the opt out clause was collectively bargained." THANK you. It kills me that this is so rarely taken into account.
May 17, 2011 at 06:18 am
Love this response... I totally agree.
I, for one, am a bit glad to see the lockout stayed during the appeal. Like you said, it balances out the scales, because up to this point, the NFLPA has been getting everything it wants. And that's not the way good bargaining works.
This farce of a court battle needs to end, and if this latest development means the two sides start talking with some sense again, then I'm all for it.
May 17, 2011 at 09:45 am
Sorry - I disagree. The owners had almost all the leverage at the beginning of this mess. The whole reason for the players to go to court in the first place was to gain leverage over the owners so they could bargain on even terms.
The owners had lockout insurance and much bigger bank accounts to begin with. It is my belief that the owners all along have wanted to make the players miss a bunch of checks (cancel at least part of the 2011 NFL year) in order to force them to fold and cry mercy.
May 17, 2011 at 06:23 am
The NFLPA with D.Smith were all giddy with a court ruling which was nothing more than riding a surfboard in a kiddie pool.
Unless they can turn the tide,their next court battle will be a faster washout then the one imposed on Ocho-Jerko with the bull.
May 17, 2011 at 06:25 am
Isn't everything that has happened to this point pretty much as predicted or expected? ..... Doty was (is) a liberal judge who rules in favor of labor while the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is (was & always will be) a more conservative panel that rules in favor of business ...... The irritating aspect to me is the lack of urgency in this dispute by the courts ....
Also, why would everyone want "to even out the scales"? ..... If both sides feel like they can still win with litigation, then serious negotiation becomes secondary ..... When one side finally realizes that they could lose, then negotiation is pretty much their best option ..... At this point, the league needs to present a (new & updated) proposal & the players need to sincerely respond instead of the mute response to the last offer .....
Like some (most) have stated, I don't give a rat's ass who is deemed the winner of this battle as long as all 32 NFL teams are on a level playing field at its conclusion ...... All along I've thought the owners represented 'team viability' more so than the players .... If both sides disregard 'team viability' in the final CBA, then we have a major shift in the way the NFL operates ..... It could be disastrous for the fan & the GB Packers ......
PackerAaron
May 17, 2011 at 07:26 am
This is perfect save for one thing: Doty is far from a liberal. He has often ruled in favor of the players, but he was appointed by Ronald Regan and there is not much in his history outside of his dealings with the NFL to suggest a liberal bias.
May 17, 2011 at 08:07 am
However, Doty's rulings hardly matter. Whatever he finds is going to be appealed and the NFL is winning bigtime in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
andrewgarda
May 17, 2011 at 08:32 am
MY biggest fear is that the owners will use this as a hammer to beat the players into submission..... and here we are right back here in 3-5 years.
May 17, 2011 at 11:12 am
Sigh. This is going to the Supreme Court. Looks like a shortened season after all.
PackerAaron
May 17, 2011 at 01:07 pm
I'll be shocked if this gets to the Supreme Court and I'll be even more shocked if they agree to hear the case.
May 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Prepare to be shocked
May 17, 2011 at 11:39 am
The part that pisses me off is how Goodell and the owners spew rhetoric about 'for the fans' this, and 'for the fans' that. You don't give a shit about the fans, you just want our money. There will be serious hell to pay if ANY games are missed. Next time Goodell or any of the owners appear in public they need to be pelted with lettuce and tomatoes.
Greed is destroying our country and a sport that millions of people love and need to stay sane.
PackerAaron
May 17, 2011 at 01:06 pm
"The part that pisses me off is how Goodell and the owners spew rhetoric about ‘for the fans’" - and De and the players don't? Please.
May 17, 2011 at 02:18 pm
I think the players do care about the fans more than the owners, perhaps not D Smith, but the actual players do. 99% of them grew as/are/were fans of teams.
PackerAaron
May 17, 2011 at 02:24 pm
While that may or may not be true (I doubt that it is) my point was that the league is not alone in using the "We really care about the fans" card as a PR point.
May 17, 2011 at 04:42 pm
Actually, all sides (owners, players, lawyers, etc.) should be forced to have this bumper sticker on their vehicles ......
"Oh ya .... Sure .... Of course .... We really care about (looks down at note card).... the fans too ...."
May 17, 2011 at 12:22 pm
1) I think that Bob Kraft's public remarks yesterday are telling - I think the owners will come to the table with a reasonable offer. The owner's are getting nervous about xissing off the xublic.
2) This ruling sends a signal for 2 out of the 3 judges on this one panel of the 8th Circuit. Appeals could run to the full panel (as Nagler noted a while back) and/or the US Supreme Court. I don't think the outcome is a given at all.
I think the dissenting opinion in the 8th has it right - the Owner's argument on irreparable harm is much weaker than the players' and maybe too weak to support a stay. The court could have stopped here, and in my view they should have.
I also think that the dissent may be closer to correct on the scope of the BASIC applicability of the law. However, the "growing out of" portion of the statue is subject to interpretation, and the 1996 Supreme Court case cited by the dissent referred a need for separation between the current dispute and the bargaining relationship in time. The fact that almost no time has passed AND the NFLPA is sitting in settlement negotiations when they are not a named party feeds right into the Owners' claim that de-certification was a sham, and increases the likelihood that the Supremes or whoever will decide that this situation clearly "grows out of" a labor dispute. This is not a good fact scenario for the players. They should get out and settle now before there is a decision on the merits of this point.
3) Bottom line: A+B=C. (A) the Owners had the bargaining leverage until the injunction; they now, again, have the leverage with the stay, but are worried about public perception so they may not maximize it; +(B) the Players need to get out now before there is a final decision on the merits; = (C) likely settlement soon.
May 17, 2011 at 03:38 pm
I love how our legal system, which is funded by us as taxpayers, is tied up in ruling who gets how much of the million dollar pie.
PackerAaron
May 17, 2011 at 03:51 pm
Or $9 billion prize, as the case may be. ;)
May 31, 2011 at 10:47 pm
I have an idea on how to fill Lambeau without football this Fall. Need 100k - two months return $180k