In sum, we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.
I see it the other way, this might finally force the nflpa* to actually negotiate. Because we all know the players will fold when they realize they are missing out on millions this season.theogt;3951318 said:Key quote from the opinion:
This line right here means that we may not have football in 2011.
theogt;3951322 said:A quick reading of this opinion and I think they've COMPLETELY misread Norris-Laguardia, even contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
Edit: The opinion is terrible and short on logic. Seems hastily put together, which is strange considering the amount of time they had on it.
We will if the players decide to sincerely negotiate finally ..theogt;3951318 said:This line right here means that we may not have football in 2011.
Maybe. Or it may force them to take it to the Supreme Court. And the point at which they may decide to do that will not be for months, because there are many other datapoints they'll need for that decision. This is basically a worst case scenario for fans, UNLESS its forces hands at the negotiating table (which I doubt at this point, though possible).speedkilz88;3951327 said:I see it the other way, this might finally force the nflpa* to actually negotiate. Because we all know the players will fold when they realize they are missing out on millions this season.
Since the statutory and the nonstatutory labor exemptions are actuated by the same policies concerning the antitrust-labor balance, the Court’s language in Brown is indicative of the outer limits of their application. It would be illogical to reject the nonstatutory labor exemption upon union disclaimer, yet prohibit the court from remedying antitrust violations through injunctive relief.
theogt;3951322 said:A quick reading of this opinion and I think they've COMPLETELY misread Norris-Laguardia, even contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
Edit: The opinion is terrible and short on logic. Seems hastily put together, which is strange considering the amount of time they had on it.
Bizwah;3951338 said:Sal Pal is reporting a possible break in negotiations. Apparently, they're still in discussions.....sounds encouraging.
But, I've had my hopes dashed before.
Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports, citing Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller, that a breakthrough has occurred in the negotiations. Eller, who is one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by former players and consolidated with the Tom Brady antitrust case, said that U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan asked the owners at the outset of the day to make a new proposal, and the owners have agreed to do so.
I think it's a pretty cut and dry issue legally, actually. But so far we have 2 federal judges agreeing with the players and 2 federal judges disagreeing. The problem is that the 2 agreeing with the owners don't actually spell out their logic in their opinion, so it's anyone's guess as to why they think what they think.Reality;3951334 said:Seems like the players having all of the legal leverage is not a given after all ..
-Reality
It's all about who has the hammer. The lower courts were all to willing to give it to the nflpa*. Now it appears the higher courts are giving it back to the nfl.theogt;3951331 said:Maybe. Or it may force them to take it to the Supreme Court. And the point at which they may decide to do that will not be for months, because there are many other datapoints they'll need for that decision. This is basically a worst case scenario for fans, UNLESS its forces hands at the negotiating table (which I doubt at this point, though possible).
Judge Bye dissented, so the decision wasn't unanimous (i.e., was a 2-1 decision). Bye's quote here was pretty damning:
