[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: NFL owners granted permanent stay MINNEAPOLIS -- The NFL has won another round in the court fight with its players. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday decided that the league's lockout of its players should stay in place until a full appeal is heard on whether it is legal, which means until at least the first week of June and possibly much longer. The 2-1 decision mirrored a similar decision last month from the same panel, including a lengthy dissent from the same judge. The appellate court said it believed the NFL has proven it "likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm without a stay." It also cast doubt on the conclusions of U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who ruled April 25 that the lockout should be lifted -- only to have the 8th Circuit panel put her decision on hold four days later. "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," the majority wrote. The 8th Circuit has scheduled a June 3 hearing in St. Louis on the legality of the lockout. "It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement Monday. "This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved." The court's decision came on the same day that NFL owners and their locked-out players resumed court-ordered mediation behind closed doors. It was the fifth day of talks in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, but the first since April 20. Hall of Famer Carl Eller, representing retired players in their federal antitrust lawsuit against the league with the current players, told ESPN's Sal Paolantonio on Monday that the sides were making progress and the players were waiting for the league to produce a new CBA offer Monday night. "I think there is progress. We are waiting on a new concrete proposal from the owners that the players can respond to. This is progress. This is good," Eller told Paolantonio. The 8th Circuit's decision had been anxiously anticipated and even though it kept the lockout in place -- in effect, leaving the situation between the NFL and its players unchanged -- it is a potential signal of how the two sides will fare once the full appeal is heard. "The ruling in granting the stay of the injunction means that the NFL owners can continue to not let football be played," NFLPA president Kevin Mawae told The Associated Press. The majority, from Judges Steven Colloton and Duane Benton, sided with the NFL while Judge Kermit Bye again dissented in favor of the players. "The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the players no longer are represented by a union," the majority wrote. "We have considerable doubt about this interpretation ... [the Norris-La Guardia Act] does not specify that the employees must be members of a union for the case to involve or grow out of a labor dispute." The 8th Circuit has been seen as a more conservative, business-friendly venue for the NFL than the federal courts in Minnesota, and legal observers have noted that Colloton and Benton were both appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican; Bye was appointed by President Clinton, a Democrat. Bye dismissed the conclusions of his fellow judges, just as he did on April 29. "Notwithstanding the majority's analysis, the NFL has not persuaded me it will suffer irreparable harm during the pendency of this expedited appeal," Bye wrote. "In any event, there will not be any shift in the 'balance of power' until the appeal is resolved." And he didn't buy the NFL's argument that it would be unable to "unscramble the egg" -- a reference to the chaos of handling player transactions with not CBA in place. "The preliminary injunction does not dictate the NFL's free agency rules, or any other conduct in general, outside of the lockout," he said. "Whatever harm may be said to befall the NFL during the pendency of the expedited appeal stands in stark contrast to the irreparable harm suffered by the players." The majority panel, however, conceded that both sides will suffer "some degree of irreparable harm no matter how this court resolves the motion for a stay pending appeal," and then criticized Nelson sharply. "We do not agree, however, with the district court's apparent view that the balance of the equities tilts heavily in favor of the players," the majority wrote. "The district court gave little or no weight to the harm caused to the league by an injunction issued in the midst of an ongoing dispute over terms and conditions of employment. The court found irreparable harm to the players because the lockout prevents free agents from negotiating contracts with any team, but gave no weight to harm that would be caused to the League by player transactions that would occur only with an injunction against the lockout." The appellate court said it would make its decision quickly, a "circumstance that should minimize harm to the players during the offseason and allow the case to be resolved well before the scheduled beginning of the 2011 season."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The NFLPA has lost its fucking mind. Baseball never recovered from its strikes. A NFL strike featuring millionaires striking billionaires in this economy? REALLY?
#2. To: Badeye (#1)
I agree with you on that from my personal experience. I gave up on baseball after their last strike.
You know as much about this as you do about football in general. A) This is a lockout not a strike. B) The owners could end this by unlocking the doors. C) The owners know they will not prevail in an anti-trust suit. D) The reason the lockout occured is the result of a dispute between the owners themselves over the length of the schedule and not the Owners v. The Players.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|