8th Circuit Rules: Lockout is legal...but lifted?

Yeah, I think it's a step in the right direction. The timing is always interesting though. This is supposed to be D-Day. If it is, then maybe this is a spring board to this whole mess being over and we can get back to some means of normalcy.

That would be good and bad for the UDFA's
"Hey Mom, I just signed with <insert nfl team here>!"
"that's great son! When does practice start"
"hell if I know, momma"
"Well, get back outside. That grass ain't gonna cut itself"

yikes...

We feared all along that the Eighth Circuit would issue a ruling that dramatically changes the dynamics of the situation as the parties were close to resolving the situation. And there’s a chance that the parties will need to tap the brakes and evaluate the ruling before continuing to talk.

That's from PFT... hopefully Florio is being overly lawyersome... :lol:

I think the biggest impact that could have is on the UDFA's. If thats true, they should be pouring in very soon... especially with the fact that teams will want to stock up as much they can due to the injuries that are bound to happen w/o the offseason prep work...

In this case, Florio may not realize (yet) what Adam Schefter is reporting...that the lockout can't apply to rookies and free agents.

I have to think it would be in everyone's best interest to completely ignore this ruling.

"ckparrothead wrote:

In this case, Florio may not realize (yet) what Adam Schefter is reporting...that the lockout can't apply to rookies and free agents.

The lockout still applies to everybody. What the court ruled is that Nelson has to have a specific evidentiary hearing regarding the applicability of the lockout to UDFA's and free agents. Her ruling on that matter, either way, could then be appealed.

Nothing has really changed and nothing in the Order should stop the ongoing negotiations. There is enough risk for both sides. The most intriguing part of the Order is that the Court didn't answer the question as to whether or not the lockout might become illegal in September, when the players are actually working and earning their paychecks. The ruling is designed to allow the players to come back and try again in September.

It was legal hair splitting at its finest. The parties need a settlement agreement, sooner rather than later.

Here's some much needed clarification on this rookie/free agent loophole:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/08/loophole-in-eighth-circuit-ruling-should-discourage-owners-from-dropping-the-hammer/

So basically they've left the ball in Judge Susan Nelson's court to forcibly begin free agency and the signing of undrafted/drafted rookies. She would have to engage in a hearing and while Florio says this could take weeks...I'm not so sure. Judge Nelson just got her @ss chaffed in this ruling by the NFL and the 8th Circuit and she has every motivation to expedite things ASAP and do exactly what the 8th Circuit just gave her the explicit freedom to do...forcibly lift the lockout as it pertains to free agents and rookies, therefore demanding that the NFL conduct "business as usual" for free agents and unsigned rookies.

Florio has the right of it that the net effect of this is probably more leverage- than action-oriented. It's something that should prevent the NFL owners from, as Florio calls it, "dropping the hammer" on negotiations, feeling like they've got the wind at their backs. It's an important aspect of the ruling that should help ensure that both parties continue negotiating as if nothing just happened. But should, does not mean will. And if there's any more hiccups in negotiations like the one seen last week, expect a filing for an expedited hearing in Judge Susan Nelson's court asking for the lockout to be lifted as it pertains to rookies and free agents. And expect Judge Nelson to issue a ruling very quickly.

But that would be true FAs, not just those with 4 yrs of service, right?

I would think all parties would want to ignore this ruling ans just finish what is supposed to be close.

"schmolioot wrote:

The lockout still applies to everybody. What the court ruled is that Nelson has to have a specific evidentiary hearing regarding the applicability of the lockout to UDFA's and free agents. Her ruling on that matter, either way, could then be appealed.

Nothing has really changed and nothing in the Order should stop the ongoing negotiations. There is enough risk for both sides. The most intriguing part of the Order is that the Court didn't answer the question as to whether or not the lockout might become illegal in September, when the players are actually working and earning their paychecks. The ruling is designed to allow the players to come back and try again in September.

It was legal hair splitting at its finest. The parties need a settlement agreement, sooner rather than later.

It's a ruling issued that in a lot of ways preserves the balance of leverage.

They went out of their way to issue a statement saying that they're not providing opinion on the length of the labor exemption. This opens the NFL to lawsuit and treble damages down the road and allows the NFL to have potentially hung itself on the words of their own lawyers who during the 8th Circuit hearing said the exemption should last at least 6 months.

But the rookie/free agent thing is more significant than you're letting on. By issuing the language they did, they've done a few things:

1. Put the ball in Judge Susan Nelson's court to begin the "business as usual" with respect to signing free agents and rookies.

2. Give her every motivation to do so as quickly and forcibly as possible so as to save face from what was otherwise a thorough reversal by a superior court.

3. Indicate that if her ruling on enjoining the lockout as it pertains to rookies/free agents is appealed by the NFL, the 8th Circuit WILL NOT be issuing emergency injunctions on her ruling, like they did when she ruled that the lockout was enjoined.

That's a very significant development that changes the leverage a little bit because the NFL would then be exposed to more treble damages if they refuse to comply with Susan Nelson's ruling...even if the lockout gets lifted in time to play all the regular season games. Free agents and especially UDFAs could argue that the delay in allowing them to sign with teams inflicted damages on their careers...for which the NFL woul be on the hook for triple damages (it's triple, right?).

"ckparrothead wrote:

It's a ruling issued that in a lot of ways preserves the balance of leverage.

They went out of their way to issue a statement saying that they're not providing opinion on the length of the labor exemption. This opens the NFL to lawsuit and treble damages down the road and allows the NFL to have potentially hung itself on the words of their own lawyers who during the 8th Circuit hearing said the exemption should last at least 6 months.

But the rookie/free agent thing is more significant than you're letting on. By issuing the language they did, they've done a few things:

1. Put the ball in Judge Susan Nelson's court to begin the "business as usual" with respect to signing free agents and rookies.

2. Give her every motivation to do so as quickly and forcibly as possible so as to save face from what was otherwise a thorough reversal by a superior court.

3. Indicate that if her ruling on enjoining the lockout as it pertains to rookies/free agents is appealed by the NFL, the 8th Circuit WILL NOT be issuing emergency injunctions on her ruling, like they did when she ruled that the lockout was enjoined.

That's a very significant development that changes the leverage a little bit because the NFL would then be exposed to more treble damages if they refuse to comply with Susan Nelson's ruling...even if the lockout gets lifted in time to play all the regular season games. Free agents and especially UDFAs could argue that the delay in allowing them to sign with teams inflicted damages on their careers...for which the NFL woul be on the hook for triple damages (it's triple, right?).

At the end of the day, this ruling shouldn't stop, stall or otherwise hinder the obvious progress made between the NFL and the PA over the lasts everal weeks. Both sides would be incredibly foolish to walk away now.

But you're right, there was potentially a small leverage shift to the players in that Nelson could quickly rule that free agents can be signed.

What a weird paradox. All the unsigned rookies can sign, but immediately when they do, they no longer are allowed to talk to the team. It almost make smore sense, to leave them unsigend so you can talk to them about offensive/defensive philosophies, etc., and then just sign them once the lockout is lifted.

"Stitches wrote:

But that would be true FAs, not just those with 4 yrs of service, right?.

No, it would apply to anyone without a contract. Doesn't matter if it's a rookie, second year, third year, fourth year or sixth year. Judge Nelson could rule that anyone that doesn't have a contract, is now no longer locked out...freeing them to sign those contracts (at which point they would then be locked out). The NFL would appeal the ruling but the 8th Circuit has given a pretty clear indication that they would not grant the injunction against Nelson's ruling on unsigned players like they did with her ruling that the lockout is enjoined.

"Samphin wrote:

What a weird paradox. All the unsigned rookies can sign, but immediately when they do, they no longer are allowed to talk to the team. It almost make smore sense, to leave them unsigend so you can talk to them about offensive/defensive philosophies, etc., and then just sign them once the lockout is lifted.

They can show they are being harmed by the lockout, and Nelson has to have a hearing w/both sides offering evidence then issuing a ruling etc.

I find this release of decision strange, with free agency now being debated on matching offers from original teams. Do the courts not watch TV or, do they?

"Southbeach wrote:

I find this release of decision strange, with free agency now being debated on matching offers from original teams. Do the courts not watch TV or, do they?

They watch Courtv....

The timing is VERY curious. We seem to be reaching a period where an agreement could have been made within the next 24 to 48 hours and yet this court decision undoubtedly delays things if for no other reason than to fully digest everything they ruled in their 34 pages. And now the NFLPA* has to decide whether to file an immediate claim with Judge Nelson's court asking for the lockout to be lifted on unsigned players, which would doubtless cause much consternation from the owners in the negotiating room.

If the negotiations truly are at the 5 yard line as previously claimed, then the NFLPA needs to simply continue the negotiating process. The negotiations apparently set the free agency requirements back to 4 years, so eventually everyone who deserves to be an FA will be one. No need to upset the apple cart.

Of course, I'm sure Kessler and Quinn are drafting the paperwork for Nelson right now.

"ckparrothead wrote:

The timing is VERY curious. We seem to be reaching a period where an agreement could have been made within the next 24 to 48 hours and yet this court decision undoubtedly delays things if for no other reason than to fully digest everything they ruled in their 34 pages. And now the NFLPA* has to decide whether to file an immediate claim with Judge Nelson's court asking for the lockout to be lifted on unsigned players, which would doubtless cause much consternation from the owners in the negotiating room.

Perhaps, it is something to push the deal before the mediator goes on vacation. Other than that, is does not make any sense.

The FA, both NFL and college, are not going to do anything at this point, although agents may. The timing was as bad as it gets, with no apparent reason.

the joint statement by the NFLPA* and the owners is encouraging. Basically saying they are moving forward... "While we respect the court's decision, today's ruling does not change our mutual recognition that this matter must be resolved thru negotiation. We are committed to our current discussions and reaching a fair agreement that will benefit all parties for years to come and allow for a FULL 2011 season."

That's the best statement they have released together in a while. Hopefully they'll get this done before that other judge can rule.

"Paul 13 wrote:

the joint statement by the NFLPA* and the owners is encouraging. Basically saying they are moving forward... "While we respect the court's decision, today's ruling does not change our mutual recognition that this matter must be resolved thru negotiation. We are committed to our current discussions and reaching a fair agreement that will benefit all parties for years to come and allow for a FULL 2011 season."

That's the best statement they have released together in a while. Hopefully they'll get this done before that other judge can rule.

Good news. One has to wonder if judges want a little publicity, and their involvement has greatly diminished.

Nice job by them quickly releasing a joint statement on it.

I think the net effect of this is that they're just as motivated to get something done, if not more so, however the players and owners know that if things de-rail then the players now have been given one more card they can play.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Nice job by them quickly releasing a joint statement on it.

I think the net effect of this is that they're just as motivated to get something done, if not more so, however the players and owners know that if things de-rail then the players now have been given one more card they can play.

I look forward to the movie version, years from now, as to what really went on. You know it's coming. :)

"Southbeach wrote:

I look forward to the movie version, years from now, as to what really went on. You know it's coming. :)

Carlton Banks as DeMaurice Smith!