ESPN Lester Munson: Injunction: Beginning of lockout end (Q&A)

[WoodysGirl]

It isn't over, but Monday's ruling in Minnesota is a huge setback for the owners

* Email
* Print
* Comments31

Munson By Lester Munson
ESPN.com

In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:

How important is the ruling to end the lockout?

It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.

Read the rest: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

 

[dogberry]

If no lockout and no CBA, will there be no rules on what a team like Cincinnati has to pay their players?

If the league could get a court to allow a roster size limitation, the current 53, the smaller teams might be willing to forgo the draft and accept a free market NFL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am kind of surprised that he was surprised that the was surprised that the lockout was enjoined. i guess he personally was not compelled by the irreparable harm argument. /shrug


I found this nugget interesting:

They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.

It makes a lot of sense. The owners argument would ultimately set precedent for the court compelling people to join a union. while they may be pro-corporate that goes contrary to US conservative ideals.

 

[newlander]

If no lockout and no CBA, will there be no rules on what a team like Cincinnati has to pay their players?

If the league could get a court to allow a roster size limitation, the current 53, the smaller teams might be willing to forgo the draft and accept a free market NFL.

....billionaire clowns need to be humbled IMO.

 

[burmafrd]

It is all dumb. On everyones part. There would have been a good deal done if the players had not been so certain the courts would do just as they have done.
There is a good chance the more conservative appeals court will split the difference; allow the lockout to remain in effect while making it clear that the courts will NOT decide this. So that the players and owners have to come to a deal. I think they will direct that there be binding arbitration.

 

[Joe Realist]

when the Eagles trade Kolb and move up in draft and get Peterson, all of you will wish the lockout went just a little longer.

 

[YosemiteSam]

....billionaire clowns need to be humbled IMO.

Clown players should be beaten and stabbed. Oh thats right, Marshall already was.

1 down, many more to go.

 

[Doomsday101]

It is all dumb. On everyones part. There would have been a good deal done if the players had not been so certain the courts would do just as they have done.
There is a good chance the more conservative appeals court will split the difference; allow the lockout to remain in effect while making it clear that the courts will NOT decide this. So that the players and owners have to come to a deal. I think they will direct that there be binding arbitration.

In the end only a CBA agreed to by both players and owners will have to be done for the NFL to be able to operate

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Again folks, who's going to feel sorry for a bunch of billionaires screaming they're on a verge of being "broke" when they refuse to open the books to show the proof of such claim?

 

[InmanRoshi]

In the end only a CBA agreed to by both players and owners will have to be done for the NFL to be able to operate

The NFL has worked without a CBA in the past, from 1987 to 1993 to be exact. It will do fine for the short term, and in the end the short term is all I care about. Let it play out in the courts while there is football going on.

 

[jterrell]

Again folks, who's going to feel sorry for a bunch of billionaires screaming they're on a verge of being "broke" when they refuse to open the books to show the proof of such claim?

lots of people on this forum apparently.

 

[dogberry]

The Packers are the ultimate non-billionaire team. Their financials are open. They have cried calf-rope over the last CBA.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Packers are the ultimate non-billionaire team. Their financials are open. They have cried calf-rope over the last CBA.

The Packers are a NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY.

They still turned a MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PROFIT in the worst economic climate in 70 years..

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

lots of people on this forum apparently.

Blind sheep....

 

[jterrell]

The Packers are the ultimate non-billionaire team. Their financials are open. They have cried calf-rope over the last CBA.

They actually only open a percentage of their financials as is required by law as a publicly traded company.

I'd agree they show to be making less money now than in 2007. But what company didn't in this economy? They easily outpace other Wisconsin big businesses by continually making a healthy profit in the millions of dollars for shareholders even in the most dire economic conditions. The Forbes value for the Packers has grown to 1 Billion dollars.

 

[dogberry]

The Pack appear to be run as a profit making but not distributing company.

On a market value of $1 billion, they had earnings of $7.5 million. As I said before, a PE of 133. To get the PE down to 19, would require earnings of $52 million.

 

[burmafrd]

The Pack appear to be run as a profit making but not distributing company.

On a market value of $1 billion, they had earnings of $7.5 million. As I said before, a PE of 133. To get the PE down to 19, would require earnings of $52 million.

That is a very low PE. Andrew Brandt said a low PE prognosis was the reason the Owners opted out of the CBA.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The Packers are a NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY.

They still turned a MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PROFIT in the worst economic climate in 70 years..

The point you are trying to make is foolish. Either you are just trying to protect some statement you made or you do not quite comprehend what a non-profit origination is and how it operates.

All companies have to have some type "revenue". If a company where to operate at a deficit, they would go under the second they ran out of money. They also most have other funds (sometimes called rainy day funds") in excess of what they spend on a normal basis to help cover cost if for some reason they do not make enough to cover the costs in whatever period, quarter, season, etc.

The difference between a non-profit organization and a for-profit organization is the fact that a for-profit organization can distribute funds in ways a non-profit cannot. All monies (no matter how much they make which is completely irrelevant) must be used towards whatever mission the non-profit is setup to do.

So, that said. The Green Bay Packers can only spend the MULTI-MILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT toward financing things for the Green Bay Packers. (ie, there ain't no billionaires making money here)