BTB: Lockout Injunction Coming?

[CooterBrown]

Its been in those last twenty years that the league has absolutely exploded.

That said intervention by the NFLPA affirming their rights as US citizens and forcing a more free market correlates directly with the dramatic increases in revenue.

"coincides with" is not the same as "correlates directly with". The NFL has done well because the market restrictions and the scheduling procedures promote even competition. In a totally free market, the "haves" drive the "have-nots" out of business. Both sides need a CBA, so don't paint this as a "freedom fight" for the players.

 

[peplaw06]

I would not hold my breath hoping for an appeals court to overturn a judge that was diligent in following the law and procedures and to ignore 40+ years of precedents.

People want to talk about negotiating in bad faith but ignore the owners strategy of locking them out until they run out of money and become desperate.

The writing was on the wall when Judge Nelson stated, 'Well you could lock them out forever couldn't you?'

Can the appeals court even rule on the contention of 'irreparable?' I am not even sure of the procedure with that type of appeal.

I thought I heard somewhere that if the court grants the player's request for injunction, an appeal will be reviewed by the appeals court on a de novo standard of review... meaning they will look at all of the evidence presented and make their own decision. And that would include their own definition of irreparable harm. The owners wouldn't have to prove that the court abused its discretion, which is a much more difficult thing to do.

 

[CCBoy]

I thought I heard somewhere that if the court grants the player's request for injunction, an appeal will be reviewed by the appeals court on a de novo standard of review... meaning they will look at all of the evidence presented and make their own decision. And that would include their own definition of irreparable harm. The owners wouldn't have to prove that the court abused its discretion, which is a much more difficult thing to do.

A valid and pertinent statement here. I would think that if that were the case, and the owners were not vindicated, that issues would be going directly to the Supreme Court with all gloves off.

I'm still hoping for reason to enter the picture very shortly, and to the game's value behind it all.

 

[CooterBrown]

I would not hold my breath hoping for an appeals court to overturn a judge that was diligent in following the law and procedures and to ignore 40+ years of precedents.

Can the appeals court even rule on the contention of 'irreparable?' I am not even sure of the procedure with that type of appeal.

A judge's diligence has nothing to do with it. Generally, on appeals, there are three types of cases:
1) application of the law issues where the only question the appellate court asks is: did the trial court correctly apply the law to the agreed facts? In those cases, the appellate court does almost a re-do of the arguments and legal analysis and don't feel particulary bound to reach the same conclusion the trial court did;
2) fact issues where the appellate court asks: are the judge's determination as to the facts based upon credibility of witnesses under oath? If the answer to that is "no", the appellate court is free to make its own fact determination from the evidence that was admitted. But, appellate courts are very reluctant to overrule a trial judge on fact issues;
3) mixed question of fact and law issues: these issues usually arise when there is no clear-cut law on these particular facts and the facts themselves are not clear-cut because they don't hinge on the credibility of witnesses, but upon interpretation of the evidence admitted. This is where appeals really become a crap-shoot. Appellate courts give trial judges great discretion and are generally reluctant to overrule, but will do so if a majority of the appellate court judges believe the trial courts ruling was erroneous or sets bad precedent.

I believe this will fall into #3 above, and the "irreparable harm" question is a hurdle for the players at the trial court level and if the players win their injunction at the trial court level, the appeals court could make the players jump that hurdle again.
On the other hand, in order to gain a respite from the injunctive relief awarded to the players by the trial court, the owners would have to ask that the injunction not be enforced until after the appellate court rules. In order to do that, they would probably have to claim "irreparable harm" from the injunction being enforced and that is probably a huge hurdle given what I understand of the facts.

So, with all that said, yes, the issue of irreparable harm is one that is subject to appeal.

 

[CooterBrown]

Easy a majority of conservative anti union judges almost any argument the owner will win in the 8th circuit (this is just an opinion)

Sorry if this is a bit of a re-post, I don't know what my computer is doing sometimes... but, the cynic in me would like to make a few points about this situation and the appellate court.

1) the owners are not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are financially.
2) the owners seem to feel pretty confident they will win at the appellate court level
3) federal court judges are appointed for life, but need political support to be appointed, either to the seat they have now, or the seat they have aspirations to hold
4) simply by virtue of being billionaires, the owners have a lot of powerful political connections
5) without actually accusing anyone of improper influence, I think the owners might have an ace up their sleeve. (up their sleeve, not in their pocket. I'm not that cynical.)

 

[CCBoy]

Sorry if this is a bit of a re-post, I don't know what my computer is doing sometimes... but, the cynic in me would like to make a few points about this situation and the appellate court.

1) the owners are not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are financially.
2) the owners seem to feel pretty confident they will win at the appellate court level
3) federal court judges are appointed for life, but need political support to be appointed, either to the seat they have now, or the seat they have aspirations to hold
4) simply by virtue of being billionaires, the owners have a lot of powerful political connections
5) without actually accusing anyone of improper influence, I think the owners might have an ace up their sleeve. (up their sleeve, not in their pocket. I'm not that cynical.)

Hey, someone who sits at a German Beer Garden while dining on schnitzel and pomfritz whilst washing that down with table warmed weisenbier, has to have some socially redeemable features that pervades his thoughts. Even if he does like chilled bottles.

 

[CCBoy]

A judge's diligence has nothing to do with it. Generally, on appeals, there are three types of cases:
1) application of the law issues where the only question the appellate court asks is: did the trial court correctly apply the law to the agreed facts? In those cases, the appellate court does almost a re-do of the arguments and legal analysis and don't feel particulary bound to reach the same conclusion the trial court did;
2) fact issues where the appellate court asks: are the judge's determination as to the facts based upon credibility of witnesses under oath? If the answer to that is "no", the appellate court is free to make its own fact determination from the evidence that was admitted. But, appellate courts are very reluctant to overrule a trial judge on fact issues;
3) mixed question of fact and law issues: these issues usually arise when there is no clear-cut law on these particular facts and the facts themselves are not clear-cut because they don't hinge on the credibility of witnesses, but upon interpretation of the evidence admitted. This is where appeals really become a crap-shoot. Appellate courts give trial judges great discretion and are generally reluctant to overrule, but will do so if a majority of the appellate court judges believe the trial courts ruling was erroneous or sets bad precedent.

I believe this will fall into #3 above, and the "irreparable harm" question is a hurdle for the players at the trial court level and if the players win their injunction at the trial court level, the appeals court could make the players jump that hurdle again.
On the other hand, in order to gain a respite from the injunctive relief awarded to the players by the trial court, the owners would have to ask that the injunction not be enforced until after the appellate court rules. In order to do that, they would probably have to claim "irreparable harm" from the injunction being enforced and that is probably a huge hurdle given what I understand of the facts.

So, with all that said, yes, the issue of irreparable harm is one that is subject to appeal.

Fuzzy has a strong rudder and affable helmsman....LOL. :starspin

 

[CooterBrown]

Hey, someone who sits at a German Beer Garden while dining on schnitzel and pomfritz whilst washing that down with table warmed weisenbier, has to have some socially redeemable features that pervades his thoughts. Even if he does like chilled bottles.

Draft. In a chilled mug.

 

[jterrell]

I thought I heard somewhere that if the court grants the player's request for injunction, an appeal will be reviewed by the appeals court on a de novo standard of review... meaning they will look at all of the evidence presented and make their own decision. And that would include their own definition of irreparable harm. The owners wouldn't have to prove that the court abused its discretion, which is a much more difficult thing to do.

It all depends upon on the actual wording of the appeal. That is why it is silly for folks to claim a ruling on appeal will go a certain way. We haven't yet seen the appeal.

Because the NFLPA will have won an "irreparable harm" claim it will be difficult to get an injunction allowing a lock out while the court reviews the case. The nature of winning that claim means the players would be further harmed by court delays during a ruling. This is intriguing legally imho. ---tho likely to end with a CBA before a final ruling.

 

[jterrell]

A valid and pertinent statement here. I would think that if that were the case, and the owners were not vindicated, that issues would be going directly to the Supreme Court with all gloves off.

I'm still hoping for reason to enter the picture very shortly, and to the game's value behind it all.

The Supreme Court WILL NOT touch this case, period.

That you can bet on.

 

[jterrell]

If the draft was illegal, players in football, baseball and basketball would have all sued long ago...

Some of y'all are unclear about the concept of collective bargaining agreements... this particular work stoppage has nothing to do with "player freedom", no matter how much Fuzzy and others try to suggest that it is... nope, this stoppage is all about dividing up the pie... the players want more of the pie, the owners want to give out less of it...

You are correct but at a slant. Call it artistic license.

1) The players want the SAME slice of the pie they got under the last CBA not a bigger one.

2) The draft is illegal RIGHT NOW because there is no CBA. Under a CBA it is perfectly legal.

 

[dogberry]

Can the 2011 season be played without a new CBA? Would the 2010 CBA be enough? Would the judge prevent a lockout but not impose any other rules on 2011? Sorry, I'm curious about the range of outcomes.

Also, the NFL rules require 24 votes to ratify a CBA? Are there nine votes at the high end to block revenue sharing? Are there nine votes at the low end to bloc a salary floor?

 

[Nightshade]

Just look at this thread. Look at the amazing insight and intelligent commentary.

Anyone want to tell me this isn't THE BEST football forum in the world?

HUH? ANYONE?

I didn't think so!

 

[CCBoy]

The Supreme Court WILL NOT touch this case, period.

That you can bet on.

You must be referring to a still intact umbrella that is about sporting venues even today, and the sense that it is a 'baby' of the US Congress to oversee.

Although I seriously doubt you would wish to wager a direction at this point...as it would be an attempt in vanity with all the legal actions already set in course at this date. I was basing an opinion upon legally simple inclusion in theory laid out in Common Law and the UCC. But you weren't going for a discussive development there.

I had a conversation with a Labor Lawyer with a state specialization. He stated that the District Court had not to date allowed him to present a case before it, even when he had a cut and dried case in presentment. He stated point blank, that they allowed only the lawyers to present them a case, that they so desired.

No basis?

 

[jterrell]

You must be referring to a still intact umbrella that is about sporting venues even today, and the sense that it is a 'baby' of the US Congress to oversee.

Although I seriously doubt you would wish to wager a direction at this point...as it would be an attempt in vanity with all the legal actions already set in course at this date. I was basing an opinion upon legally simple inclusion in theory laid out in Common Law and the UCC. But you weren't going for a discussive development there.

If I am right you change your username (may need Hos help there) and avatar to Yoda?

I am certainly willing to bet. And I sure you can be creative in coming up with an avatar and username appropriate for me....

Bet you, willing I am be it user name or temperature of room hefeweizen.

 

[CCBoy]

If I am right you change your username (may need Hos help there) and avatar to Yoda?

I am certainly willing to bet. And I sure you can be creative in coming up with an avatar and username appropriate for me....

Bet you, willing I am be it user name or temperature of room hefeweizen.

Such convictions? Maybe you should see your neighborhood recruitor and use some of it...topic was the level.

I recall a picture of a very senior man, attempting to come to attention while limbs quivered and arms could not fully straigten. He was attempting to enlist for cause...here, I am fully willing to bet that you never got a clue as to direction that I WAS GOING with topic. And you FAIL in a comparitive element to present ANYTHING beyond a sense of conviction and attitude. There isn't EVEN grounds for a bet...unless you really expect someone offering comment to prima facie being ignorant as to perspective as well.

I am a Notary Public, want a seal? And no, I'm not referring to one at Sea World.

Oh yea, and I don't associate dry hunching another's pants leg as morale support. As to my avatar, I put it there myself. And maybe YOU are still able to respect a Vet. Sorry Charlie, your bragging on negotiative ability didn't hit the court room here.

 

[peplaw06]

If I am right you change your username (may need Hos help there) and avatar to Yoda?

I am certainly willing to bet. And I sure you can be creative in coming up with an avatar and username appropriate for me....

Bet you, willing I am be it user name or temperature of room hefeweizen.

Good luck getting him to understand certiorari.

 

[jterrell]

Such convictions? Maybe you should see your neighborhood recruitor and use some of it...topic was the level.

I recall a picture of a very senior man, attempting to come to attention while limbs quivered and arms could not fully straigten. He was attempting to enlist for cause...here, I am fully willing to bet that you never got a clue as to direction that I WAS GOING with topic. And you FAIL in a comparitive element to present ANYTHING beyond a sense of conviction and attitude. There isn't EVEN grounds for a bet...unless you really expect someone offering comment to prima facie being ignorant as to perspective as well.

I am a Notary Public, want a seal? And no, I'm not referring to one at Sea World.

Oh yea, and I don't associate dry hunching another's pants leg as morale support. As to my avatar, I put it there myself. And maybe YOU are still able to respect a Vet. Sorry Charlie, your bragging on negotiative ability didn't hit the court room here.

basically, you are scared to bet but love typing?

 

[CCBoy]

Good luck getting him to understand certiorari.

That is funny from someone who's every post on site is ego supportive of his own...no matter the direction taken by another. It's your way or the highway.

Well, some just don't waste their gas at today's prices.

And you think a groupie norm is the only consideration in town. No matter how many star clusters you use to bring attention to it.

And since you attempt to brag with latin, I'll JUST respond in Spanish. Es no mala, pero tu esta una lata. Deveras?

Mira... Si se puede, pero, PINCHE Raza!

 

[Gaede]

what the hell is going on in this thread