Could be weeks before ruling on NFL injunction
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - Eagles
Could be weeks before ruling on NFL injunction
UPDATE: It will be a couple weeks at least before we know if a St. Paul judge orders the NFL to lift its lockout. In the meantime, Judge Susan Richard Nelson urged the league and players to resume negotiations, but the prospects of that happening seemed dim, based on what attorneys for the two sides told reporters immediately after their hearing ended.
The players' lawyers said they were open to talking about settling their anti-trust lawsuit. The owners' lawyers said they want to resume talks on a full collective bargaining agreement. In other words, they remain on different pages.
The players won't go back into CBA talks because it will make it look like they are again a union, and all of their legal leverage comes from the fact that they have decertified and thus can bring an anti-trust suit against the league.
Nelson said it would take "a couple of weeks" for her to make a fair evaluation of the two sides' arguments and said both face risk from the work stoppage.
"This is a very good time to come back to the table," Nelson said. "I do hope both sides will consider utilizing the services of the federal court."
NFL attorney David Boies, after facing some sharp questioning early in the day, made similar arguments in the afternoon session but made them far more forcefully and seemed to gain some ground in his argument that the lockout is legal and that federal law in this case prevents the court from issuing an injunction. The players seemed to get the better of the morning session.
Of course, even legal experts won't predict the outcomes of a case based solely on a judge's questions. Nelson has several options now: rule in favor of the players and lift the lockout; rule in favor of the owners and leave it in place; ask for more evidence in further hearings (an idea she briefly brought up today) or order the two sides back to mediation. Today she encouraged them to talk, but did not force them to.
It doesn't seem that they will, and so, for now, we wait for her ruling as the case continues to unravel.
Prospects for a 2011 season? I don't think the odds have changed at this point. We're still months away from the season and both sides have time to try their legal strategies and still get back to negotiations before games are lost. My initial impression is that they wait for Nelson's ruling, at least, before serious talks resume. They may even wait for the appeals to play out, which could last into June. But that still leaves lots of time to make a deal before games are missed.
What may have changed are the prospects for league business resuming before the draft. If Nelson ruled quickly, and chose to lift the injunction, trades and free agency might have opened up by late April and perhaps the Eagles could have moved Kevin Kolb or tried to bring in free agents. With a ruling now looking unlikely before April 20th or so, it seems that hopes for trades before the April 28 draft may be fading.
We'll have more online and in the Inquirer tomorrow.
Update: Judge Susan Richard Nelson said it would probably take a couple of weeks to rule and urged both sides to return to negotiations.
From earlier:
ST PAUL, MN -- We're in a short break for lunch here in Minnesota, but here's the big picture as I see it so far: Judge Susan Richard Nelson has sounded very skeptical of the NFL's arguments for why its lockout should remain in place.
She repeatedly pressed NFL attorney David Boies on his arguments, at one point saying, "I'm having a hard time understanding why the (anti-trust) exemption would protect a lockout," after the players' union has decertified.
The owners have argued that they still have the anti-trust protections needed to legally impose a lockout because even though players have decertified their union, they did so as part of an ongoing labor dispute. The players argued that after they dissolved their union the league lost anti-trust protections and that the lockout is effectively an illegal boycott of player services.
The players have asked for an injunction lifting the lockout and forcing the league to resume business.
Nelson attacked several of the league's arguments including that she should defer to the National Labor Relations Board and that federal law prevents judges from enjoining a lockout.
She asked far fewer questions of Jim Quinn, the attorney making arguments for the players.
Still, it is risky reading in to judges' questions, which don't necessarily show which way they will rule.
To get an injunction, players would have to prove that they will suffer "irreparable harm" unless Nelson acts now. The two sides have spent little time on that issue, though Quinn said more than 800 free agents and rookies are left "without jobs."
Most of the day has been devoted to detailed legal discussions and arguments, citing both sports law and labor law.
Five named NFL plaintiffs are here: Von Miller, Ben Leber, Brian Robison, Vincent Jackson and Mike Vrabel.
Nelson is expected to take a week or longer to rule and any decision she makes will be appealed, but the final outcome could greatly swing leverage in the dispute.
More later and in tomorrow's Inquirer.
Can someone wake me up when Michael Vick throws an 80 yard bomb to Djax again?— brmorgen81- Banner and Roseman should be there to instruct the court on the best way to use coffee grounds twice.
- Is that a lightly veiled anti-semetic remark?
— ej610 - No that is a lightly veiled accountants should be figuring out ways to save the team money, not selecting their talent. The Tonner has many Jewish friends.
- I beleive "thinly" is the correct adjective - a "thinly veiled anti-Semitic" remark. Also, you misspelled Semitic and did not capitalize. Talk about being anti-Semitic. Where is Joe "Nickels" Banner when you need him. — DennyP
- Why do people on these boards get off so much just by correcting people's grammar? Weird and sad I guess. — merchy99
- If the union de-certified doesn't that mean that the league could write their own work rules without player input? Is the issue that they cannot have a salary cap without the anti-trust exemption and they don't trust themselves? If possibkle, the owners should accept the union de-certification and treat the players a s individual laborers. They then should make very onerous free agent rules as well as tight draft salary rules and see how the players like that.— UncleStosh
- What you have is a report about nothing....Not worth $1.00....— STEVE5444
I hear Judge Nelson urged both sides to go back to the bargaining table, which is not gonna happen.
The only way the owners will go back to the bargaining table is if the union recertifies itself, which would effectively end this trial of trying to get the lockout lifted.
And yes UncleStosh, I did read on PFT that basically the NFL could treat the players as individual employers if the lockout is lifted. Obviously, you're pro owner with your opinion as to what the owners should do if this were to come about. I happen to be pro player in this argument. Either way though, I believe your suggested tactic would just drive a further wedge between the two parties, and the end result could very possibly be disastrous not just for all parties, but the fans as well.
Of all the legal mumbo jumbo, spin-doctoring, and leveraging going on, the one hold up in all parties coming to an agreement is the owner's refusal to open up the books. Again, why won't the owners open up the books and show the players exactly why they need a bigger % of the shared revenue? Although this is not a partnership between the owners and players, it is a shared revenue which means that the money the owners are asking for rightfully belongs to the players. Furthermore, it's not if the players flat-out refused to give up this % of the shared revenue, they just want to know EXACTLY why the owners are saying they NEED this money in order for the league to continue to grow.
Still don't know why people don't get this. It's really very simple if you ask me.- Here's why decertification matters. The Eagles players are employees of the Eagles, not the NFL. Likesise, the Giants' players work for the Giants, etc. Now if all of the employers get together and define the available benefits and work rules for individuals that is the creation of a trust - something that anti-trust laws make illegal. Employess who are not in a union have to have access to a free market. One exception to this is that a collection of employers can negotiate a contract with a union of employees. That type of contract is specifically exempt from anti-trust action. That's because the employees have the protection of collective bargaining and the ability to strike.
Consider this example. Assume you are a carpenter. All of the construction companies in your area meet and decide on the terms under which they will hire you - wages, benfits, work rules, etc. That's only legal if they are dealing with a carpenter's union. They can't do it if they are dealing with individual employees because those individual employees would lose the benefit of a free market for their services. An individual company can set any wages that it wants. If they have trouble getting people to come to work for them then that's their problem. What they cannot do is create an agreement amongst most or all of the potential employers defining pay and other benefits for all.
The NFl is going to lose this one big time. And it's not going to be a close decision. And they need to be careful because if they conspire to hold down offers to free agents they will find themselves in the same position Major League Baseball did about 15 years ago - paying huge damage awards to affected individuals. Those awards are three times the amount of each individual's damages.— Al Wilson - yes its simple reality....just as simple as the fact that the owners do not have to open their books and thus "why" is immaterial. the players can whine and complain about seeing the books all they want....if the judge does not lift the lockout and the players start losing paychecks you can bet they wont care as much about 'open books' in order to get a deal done. the union's decert was a sham from day one and its very likely that the judge will rule in favor of the owners...but even if she doesnt the owners will appeal and appeal some more, which will take months and as the season draws closer and players start moving in with their mommies because they dont all have peyton manning money THATS when the real bargaining will begin— IcanTakeit
- Well, IcanTakeit, nowhere in my post did I say the owners "have to" open up their books, and they chose not to do so. My point is, that the owners not showing the books to the players is, right now, the hold up in the negotiations for a new CBA, because the players want to know exactly why the owners are asking for a greater % of the revenue, but the owners refuse to show this information. Thus, "why" is anything but immaterial.
As far as your speculation of what the owners and players will do if 'this happens' and 'that happens', that is truly "immaterial" You and I have absolutely no clue what course of action the parties will take when 'this happens' and 'that happens'...by the way, your childish insults towards the players don't help your argument.— Reality Speaks 
I hope, no, I pray that all of them, ALL OF THEM, lose all their money, have to get jobs at Sears, and then go straight to H-E-double toothpicks. Greedy basterds . . . (yes I spelled it wrong)— Justicek- justicek is dead on. Baseball is here.— Joe at the shore
