Injunction

[Verdict]

I haven't been following the federal court case involving the lockout, because in the end there is just way too much money on the table for the NFL to just disband. So sooner or later, one side of the other will give in.

The purpose of this thread is to debate the injunction issue. As I see it (without giving great legal thought to it) it would appear that if the NFL can lock the players out, then they are pretty well hosed and will cave in at some point.

I'm no antitrust lawyer, but having litigated lots of cases involving injunctions, it is pretty well settled law that an injunction is considered "extraordinary relief" and moreover an injunction cannot issue unless there is a showing of "irreparable harm". Generally speaking, a loss of money does not, by definition, constitute irreparable harm.

Does anyone know specifically what the players are arguing constitutes irreparable harm giving rise to an injunction?

 

[JustDezIt]

I haven't been following the federal court case involving the lockout, because in the end there is just way too much money on the table for the NFL to just disband. So sooner or later, one side of the other will give in.

The purpose of this thread is to debate the injunction issue. As I see it (without giving great legal thought to it) it would appear that if the NFL can lock the players out, then they are pretty well hosed and will cave in at some point.

I'm no antitrust lawyer, but having litigated lots of cases involving injunctions, it is pretty well settled law that an injunction is considered "extraordinary relief" and moreover an injunction cannot issue unless there is a showing of "irreparable harm". Generally speaking, a loss of money does not, by definition, constitute irreparable harm.

Does anyone know specifically what the players are arguing constitutes irreparable harm giving rise to an injunction?

from what i have heard part of the argument is that since average careers can be short in the NFL, like 3-4 years, that a loss of a season or partial season is detrimental. also, that there are an extraordinary amount of players that are currently not under contract, therefor unemployed, and unable to seek new jobs.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Does anyone know specifically what the players are arguing constitutes irreparable harm giving rise to an injunction?

The fact that they can't buy tacos without a job.

 

[Joe Realist]

[youtube]mkO87mkgcNo[/youtube]

 

[Verdict]

from what i have heard part of the argument is that since average careers can be short in the NFL, like 3-4 years, that a loss of a season or partial season is detrimental. also, that there are an extraordinary amount of players that are currently not under contract, therefor unemployed, and unable to seek new jobs.

The problem is that money can compensate them for that loss. It would, generally speaking, not constitute irreparable harm.

 

[JustDezIt]

The problem is that money can compensate them for that loss. It would, generally speaking, not constitute irreparable harm.

If a players career was somehow cut a year short by the lockout, it seems that would be irreparable and he would not be compensated to make up for that. What if a player needed off season workouts to learn enough and prove himself to make the 53 man roster, he doesnt get it, gets cut and his career ends.

 

[theogt]

Excerpt from the players' reply brief:

No court has accepted Defendants’ view that money can fully compensate professional athletes for “any possible harm.” To the contrary, every court to decide the issue has held that no amount of damages can wholly compensate players for lost competitive opportunities given their short and precarious careers. Mot., 15-16 citing, e.g., Jackson, 802 F. Supp. at 231; NFLPA v. NFL, 598 F. Supp. 2d 971 (D. Minn. 2008); Haywood v. NBA, 401 U.S. 1204, 205 (1971); Bowman v. NFL, 402 F. Supp. 754, 756 (D. Minn. 1975) (“unemployed but qualified professional football players who are prevented from seeking and obtaining employment in their chosen field by the concerted action of defendants” suffered irreparable harm).

Players are suffering irreparable harm now, before games are lost. The offseason is the time when Players compete to try to find a team, make a roster, establish themselves as starting players, demonstrate that they can overcome
injuries, or otherwise prove themselves. To do this, they need the opportunity to sign with the right team, begin off-season workouts, learn the team’s system, and compete before training camp begins. Absent immediate injunctive relief, it will be impossible to turn back the clock or quantify in damages these lost opportunities. Reply Decl., ¶¶ 36-43; Mot., 15-16.

Nor is there any merit to Defendants’ argument that this harm is not irreparable because “the lockout applies equally to all.” Opp’n, 45. If anything, the fact that all Players are harmed makes the need for preliminary relief even more compelling. Silverman v. MLB Player Relations Comm., Inc., 67 F.3d 1054, 1062 (2d Cir. 1995) (enjoining system harming all baseball players).

Judge Nelson indicated yesterday that she felt the players had a pretty "strong" case in regards to irreparable harm.

 

[SDogo]

Excerpt from the players' reply brief:

Judge Nelson indicated yesterday that she felt the players had a pretty "strong" case in regards to irreparable harm.

The only irreparable harm occurring right now is to the fans and the leagues (owners and players) images.

They both can take a flying leap.

 

[SDogo]

Also just so I'm clear.

Both sides stated they wanted to talk but declined invite to talk because know we are going to bicker over where we talk?

 

[Stautner]

Also just so I'm clear.

Both sides stated they wanted to talk but declined invite to talk because know we are going to bicker over where we talk?

I'll buy a keg and order some pizza. They can do it at my place.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Excerpt from the players' reply brief:

Judge Nelson indicated yesterday that she felt the players had a pretty "strong" case in regards to irreparable harm.

Its the exact same argument that they have lost on several times before.

There are NO NEW ARGUMENTS from the NFL that I can tell. It appears they can wait and just hope that a new judge or new court will overturn 40 years of rulings.

As for irreparable harm its really simple. Think of it this way. If there is no offseason, the performance of our defense will suffer even if the lockout ends before the games actually begin. that measnt he performance of the players and thus their earning potential in the future will be hindered.

Players talk all the time about how this is their one shot to make it in the NFL. There would be no shots this year.

it makes sense. To compete at a high level in the NFL you need to train and study constantly. Players that do not, have less success. The lockout inhibits their ability to train and rehabilitate and completely removes the opportunity to be coached and learn.

The entire 2011 draft class would be less qualified than a potential 2012 class. Because of NCAA rules, many cannot even consider returning to school.

You can replace money but you cannot replace time.

 

[casmith07]

I lol'd. Guy named "Verdict" starting a thread called "Injunction."

 

[Beast_from_East]

Excerpt from the players' reply brief:

Judge Nelson indicated yesterday that she felt the players had a pretty "strong" case in regards to irreparable harm.

I think it is pretty obvious to anybody with an ounce of grey matter in their brain that the judge is going to grant the injunction if there is not a settlement in the next 2 weeks.

She all but agreed with the players and the NFL really didnt have a counter argument. Basically the main reason the NFL gave for keeping the lockout in place was that the judge didnt have jurisidiction.


Trust me, when your best legal case is to convince the judge she does not have jurisdiction, if that is your best argument to support your case..................you are screwed.

 

[5Stars]

Its the exact same argument that they have lost on several times before.

There are NO NEW ARGUMENTS from the NFL that I can tell. It appears they can wait and just hope that a new judge or new court will overturn 40 years of rulings.

As for irreparable harm its really simple. Think of it this way. If there is no offseason, the performance of our defense will suffer even if the lockout ends before the games actually begin. that measnt he performance of the players and thus their earning potential in the future will be hindered.

Players talk all the time about how this is their one shot to make it in the NFL. There would be no shots this year.

it makes sense. To compete at a high level in the NFL you need to train and study constantly. Players that do not, have less success. The lockout inhibits their ability to train and rehabilitate and completely removes the opportunity to be coached and learn.

The entire 2011 draft class would be less qualified than a potential 2012 class. Because of NCAA rules, many cannot even consider returning to school.

You can replace money but you cannot replace time.

"You can replace money but you cannot replace time".

If that's the case, then the players and their leader better hurry up and get this done, times running out!

I mean, irreparable harm? Naw, the owners can wait it out. Take your pick. Get paid money, or waste time.

 

[Beast_from_East]

"You can replace money but you cannot replace time".

If that's the case, then the players and their leader better hurry up and get this done, times running out!

I mean, irreparable harm? Naw, the owners can wait it out. Take your pick. Get paid money, or waste time.

The problem is that Judge Nelson is not going to let the owners "wait it out". It is highly probably from her comments that she is going to grant the injunction and force the owners to lift the lockout.

The $10 million dollar question will be "what will the owners do then"???

 

[5Stars]

The problem is that Judge Nelson is not going to let the owners "wait it out". It is highly probably from her comments that she is going to grant the injunction and force the owners to lift the lockout.

The $10 million dollar question will be "what will the owners do then"???

Appeal...



Then the circle jerk continues...