Judge Nelson rules in favor of players, lifts lockout

Some of them.

 

My avatar alone brings joy to the world.

 

Is it like rain on your wedding day?

 

Where are our board legal experts?
My understanding is that there are two different set of issues -- what the players are saying in the case, and what the players want in a new CBA. They're not the same things, necessarily. In the case, they're just pointing out ways that the owners are working to restrict the free flow of labor. They're not saying that these are necessarily things the players union would want to get rid of, just things that the NFL can't do, according to labor law, unless it's through collective bargaining, which is impossible since the union is "dissolved."

 

So if this goes south for the owners does Goodell lose his job?

 

I wonder what percentage of NFL players have $1 million in net worth at any given time.

 

Not many, so most of them have to steal stories No. 21-infinity from the NYT Web site.[/crossthread]

 

FYPcrossthread

 

Stay classy.

 

And the thing is, with a few tweaks, the NFL had an excellent business model. The owners made money. The employees made money. And the customers (fans) were (relatively) happy and willing to spend money.

But the owners got too damn greedy. Had they gone to the union with a proposal to take the savings from a rookie wage scale and put all that money into retirement benefits, the players probably would have approved. And if the owners wanted a bigger piece of the pie, they should have offered some sort of salary guarantees to the players, rather than the current system of cutting a guy and not owing them anything except their bonus. And scratch this 18-game idea, unless the owners want to suit up themselves. Put up or shut up.

But nope. Corporate greed runs amok. And hopefully, they pay for it. Big time.

 

The judge's ruling was actually fairly simple in light of existing labor law (as I understand it from my legal studies, not necessarily everyday practice.)

The owners do not get the benefit of having the opportunity to bargain with the players individually (without a union or collective bargaining agreement) AND ALSO the benefit of throwing up a collective effort to lock out the players. That is classic anti-trust behavior, working collectively together against individuals (think oil companies collectively acting in concert to raise gas prices.) That's what the owners did.

Once the players decertified, the owners got to strike individual deals with each separate player (Fedex loves this vs. what UPS has to do); however instead of saying to Brees "we'll give you unlimited health for life for you and your family" and then to Alex Smith "we'll give you $1M but you have to pay for your own health insurance for this year"; they decided to declare a lockout. Wrong.

Everyone focuses that decertification was "illusory" but legally it is not an insigificant move, by decertifying the players said they would bargain individually and that opened up the possibility that a 8 yr. vet could be paid $100k instead of the $1M required under the CBA. Yet the owners know that they cannot help themselves, they will bid against each other for the stars without an artificial restraint (salary cap) and salaries will skyrocket.

 

And that frightens me. Honestly, I'm worried that my Cardinals are about to have any chance of ever being relevant permanently extinguished because of this ruling. That's a big reason why I'm hoping the owners win the appeal.