Lock Out Lifted Owners Scrambling Like

[SoulDawg74]

Cock roaches exposed to sudden light to appeal.

Manning and others could be deemed free agents

SoulDawg

[hiko]

Cock roaches exposed to sudden light to appeal.

Manning and others could be deemed free agents

SoulDawg

Just what we need - further empowered athletes.

I got a bad feeling about this.

[e0y2e3]

This is essentially the worst thing that could have happened.

Empowers the NFL and NBA players in a manor that isn't going to be beneficial re: addressing any of the actual problems.

End of the day this is going to cause a lot more stress and probably end up overruled on appeal. Accomplishing nothing than than completely fucking up the NBA and NFL negotiations.

The NFL could fuck up a wet dream.

[Triple-S]

I thought you disliked how the NFL was set up?

IE, disliking the fact that it was more of a "Mediocre teams w/ a good QB" being playoff teams?

[e0y2e3]

I don't like the NFL and as I have said 100x all the pro sports have issues.

That said breaking off negotiations through federal court, applying labor law in an instance it is ugly to apply it and empowering more cock-sucker athletes is never good.

And the progress made the last few weeks in the NBA just took a big hit because of this as well. This court case could end up dictating pro sports in all sports for a long long time.

[peeker643]

This is essentially the worst thing that could have happened.

Empowers the NFL and NBA players in a manor that isn't going to be beneficial re: addressing any of the actual problems.

End of the day this is going to cause a lot more stress and probably end up overruled on appeal. Accomplishing nothing than than completely fucking up the NBA and NFL negotiations.

The NFL could fuck up a wet dream.

Yep. And the clock is ticking. I look at cases all day that are three, four or five years old in the court system. Simple damages cases, no great legal issues to address or decide.

Years.

They have four and a half months before kick off to figure out some complex shit. Some judge looking to make a name for herself/himself is the nightmare situation if you want a football season.

Because now we have the inevitable appeal tomorrow before people get to work and this thing will be a soup sandwich by noon. Add in the egos of men with money and egos and men with egos and money and this might be the fuse on the powder keg being lit.

Rational minds will ultimately win out and get it done, but this judge just may have extended the time between those rational minds getting together by a few weeks because they're pissed or preening.

Bunch of fucking idiots. Some of these morons thought they could get a lift in tomorrow so their workout bonuses would kick in and now some of the idiot owners will want blood just because they got kicked in the balls.

[jerryroche]

Am I right in assuming that, no matter who wins, ticket prices will go up again? One side wins, they go up a lot; other side wins, they go through the roof?

The golden goose may never die, but it could well get to a point where it's on oxygen 24/7 -- thanks to greed on the left, greed on the right, and greed in the middle!

[peeker643]

Am I right in assuming that, no matter who wins, ticket prices will go up again? One side wins, they go up a lot; other side wins, they go through the roof?

The golden goose may never die, but it could well get to a point where it's on oxygen 24/7 -- thanks to greed on the left, greed on the right, and greed in the middle!

Mine didn't go up this year. They're $50 a seat.

Started at $40 about 8 years ago and then went to $45 and now to $50. I think this will be the 3rd straight year at that price. But yeah, just waiting for that letter either this season or next.

And I am at the jump off point. They could keep me with no increase or with a competitive football team.

Maybe.

[mattvan1]

They have four and a half months before kick off to figure out some complex shit.

Respectfully disagree. 51% vs. 49% and a rookie wage scale. BFD. It's not complex - it's kids with toys. Except in this case the toys are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. So the money makes it complex - not the issues. The issues are so trivial that any family faces way bigger choices on a regular Saturday.

Bunch of fucking idiots. Some of these morons thought they could get a lift in tomorrow so their workout bonuses would kick in and now some of the idiot owners will want blood just because they got kicked in the balls.

Truth. Dumbness makes this drag on far longer than it should. Where is Gene Upshaw to cave when we need him?

[danwismar]

And I am at the jump off point. They could keep me with no increase or with a competitive football team.

Maybe.

Been at that point for about three years....teetering on the edge...losing my balance...

[gdbenz]

Here's the irony of what's going on. Factually, the judge is probably right. The decertification was legitimate and since it occurred before the lockout, there can't be a labor dispute within the meaning of federal labor law. The problem is that the judge doesn't get to decide whether the decertification was legit. That's up to the NLRB and the owners have a charge pending on that issue. Thus if I'm guessing, I think the owners get a short-lived victory in the court of appeals and the lockout eventually goes back into place. The reason though it will be short-lived is that once the NLRB does make a ruling, I expect them to side with the players on the issue of decertification. That means, ultimately, that the concerted action of 32 owners to lockout every player constitutes an anti-trust violation. In other words, what happened yesterday does little to solve the problems. The real problem here though is that the union and its advisers want to continue to pursue a litigation strategy at the expense of collective bargaining. Until they decide they want to actually work toward reaching agreement, which they haven't done yet, no agreement will be reached.

[jb]

Ur piece today was the best thing you've ever written, Gary. Right in your wheelhouse.

Keep 'em coming so I understand this mess!

[pup]

Use last year's rules. Take another 12 months to work on new deal. Roger and the boys get to keep their game in the lights for another straight 365.

Gary - Obviously more in your world than mine. But wouldn't the court of appeals, if they rule before the NLRB does, have to act on the facts as they are? And wouldn't that fact be the lockout is illegal because there is no union? So why would they overrule this decision? Is there something I am missing? And wouldn't the NFL be better off not having the appeal heard until the NLRB renders a decision?

[peeker643]

Ur piece today was the best thing you've ever written, Gary. Right in your wheelhouse.

Keep 'em coming so I understand this mess!

100% Agreed.

[gdbenz]

Pup, the issue of whether or not there is a union is a fact in dispute. The district court ruled that the union isn't in existence but the court of appeals can and likely should rule that it wasn't within the district court's jurisdiction to make that decision. Under federal labor law, that determination is supposed to be reserved for the NLRB. Thus, if the court of appeals overrules the district court, it would do so by saying that the judge should have first allowed the NLRB to make its determination before deciding on whether to enjoin the strike. In that case, and assuming the NLRB hasn't yet ruled, the lockout would go back into effect. As I noted, though, that would be a relatively short-lived victory for the owners. The NLRB will likely rule that the union did lawfully decertify. That would give the district court the ability to then declare the lockout invalid, again, and issue an injunction. Of course, the owners would appeal the ruling from the NLRB. That appeal would go to a completely different federal court of appeals. However, there is very little liklihood that the court of appeals would "stay" the ruling of the NLRB in the interim, meaning that the decision to declare the union's decertification valid would remain unless and until the court of appeals over turned it. As you can probably tell, many, many days and weeks and months pass before any of these legal decisions get made,further creating a whole boatload of uncertainty about the NFL's future. In truth, the union is on a path of search and destroy and their actions threaten the future of the NFL, or at least as most fans currently know the NFL.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

Ur piece today was the best thing you've ever written, Gary. Right in your wheelhouse.

Keep 'em coming so I understand this mess!

Also concurred. Great work, Gary.

That said, something one of the WFNY guys said has been bouncing around in my head. How much of this mess is due to Roger Goodell, and how much due to the players' post-Gene Upshaw mindset? Are we in this deep if there was no talk of an 18-game season?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I find both sides contemptible. Players blow money on shit like gold plated bathtubs and $150,000 watches complain about "having mouthes to feed". The owners are richer than King Croesus and THEY opted out.

I don't see how they win the appeal.

So it looks like it's gonna be a Cold War season at best.

[daddywags]

Good piece, Gary. I'm not really sure the players (or most of them) know what it is they are asking for here. Both sides are playing the cards they've been dealt so far, but where the players believed the decertification/lawsuit strategy was the "nuclear option," I suspect the owners have something else in mind as an end game - like giving them what they are asking for.

"Where those employees effectively renounce the union as their collective bargaining agent–and accept the consequences of doing so–and elect to proceed in negotiating contracts individually, any disputes between the employees and
their employers are no longer governed by federal labor law."

[gdbenz]

To understand the roots of this dispute, you have to go back to the last collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw. That contract was headed for trouble until Tagliabue came in and finalized a deal that angered many of the owners. They thought that it was way too rich for the players, giving them much too big a piece of the pie. The owners felt like they take all the financial risk, e.g. stadium costs, etc., and to give the players the majority of the money was insane. However, the owners did approve that deal, although very reluctantly, and it isn't any coincidence that Tagliabue retired shortly after it was signed. Tagliabue had lost their support. Goodell was brought in knowing exactly why the owners were upset and he knew ultimately that this day was coming. The owners have been spoiling to reconfigure the deal and that's why they opted out of the contract a year early (the expired contract gave them that right). So in that sense it was the owners that set this up for labor armageddon. The union has understood, too, that this day was coming and have been putting together their game plan for nearly as long. The union all along knew that the owners wanted a recutting of the economic pie and weren't prepared to give it under any circumstances. That's why the negotiations have gone nowhere. But the course the union put the players on actually does threaten the continued existence of the NFL as fans currently know it. The union right now is hellbent on letting the league implode as a better alternative to giving in on the economics. The owners ultimately control what happens and I suspect they'll do just that. The scenario they see is rather simple: if forced to end the lockout, they'd be just as happy with letting every player be a free agent. There will be open bidding on the top tier and then every team will just go about finding very cheap fill ins for the rest of the team. Eventually that cheap labor will get angry about their pay and reform the union and strike a deal with the owners. That deal, I guarantee you, will be far better than what they can get at the table right now from this group of players.

[danwismar]

Really good piece by Allen Barra that's worth a read...

http://sbn.to/fvVCl5

He says the ruling is a game-changer for the players...credits DeMaurice Smith...and says the issues will be quickly resolved because the owners know how much trouble they're in...

[jb]

facsinating.

So are you suggesting that complete FA would commence immediately upon the end of a lockout with a lack of a CBA nullifying all existing contracts or would the contracts have to first end?

And then with no CB unit the owners can impose any other governing structure they wish unilaterally, such as salary caps, reserve clauses; anything? Players can either choose to sign as individual professionals or do something else for a living?

Do I have that ramification straight?

Surely the mid-level players understand this as a possibility and are livid.

[jb]

Really good piece by Allen Barra that's worth a read...

http://sbn.to/fvVCl5

He says the ruling is a game-changer for the players...credits DeMaurice Smith...and says the issues will be quickly resolved because the owners know how much trouble they're in...

Dan, given the chess games suggeted by Gary and Dwags, this article seems very short sighted. And exactly what monopoly do the NFL owners have?

And now I can't get Blazing Saddles out of my mind either.

[danwismar]

Don't know that it's necessarily "short-sighted" to predict it will be resolved sooner instead of later. He may well be wrong though. I just thought it was an interesting take.

Besides, I'm partial to Barra...he's the dude that got me and TCF.com mentioned in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago.

[hiko]

Really good piece by Allen Barra that's worth a read...

http://sbn.to/fvVCl5

He says the ruling is a game-changer for the players...credits DeMaurice Smith...and says the issues will be quickly resolved because the owners know how much trouble they're in...

No offense, Dan, but that's about as big a delusional steaming pile as I've ever read. Did DeMo write that himself?

Yep... this is a great thing. Because if the players "win", then the owners will be free to do away with all those pesky things like minimum salaries, health care, and suspension hearings. As someone posted on Pro Football Talk about an article where DeMaurice Smith told the players that they were free to negotiate with teams as Free Agents and that the teams were NOT allowed to refuse to negotiate:

Yeah, I’d negotiate. Since there is no league minimum anymore, I’ll give ya $40k/ year. Take it or leave it. By the way, there is now a 20 game season, find your own facilities to work out at, we have full pad practices every day until games start, there is no health insurance, no retirement pension, and oh yeah, our team only has 11 players, you have to play both offense, defense and special teams. Don’t like it? Go file a grievence with your union...

So when they realize all the disadvantages of having no Union, they'll be forced to re-form... only to get promptly locked out.

Fucking disaster.

[jb]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kinda what I was thinking, Danno. A lil hyperbole, but yeah. LOVE to see the franchises operate in anarchy. Can;t imagine the disposable players coming out ahead unless all the owners act like Snyders. The rank & file will go bananas. They're hosed.

[hiko]

I really thought they were smarter than this. I really thought that they would work things out before it got to this point.

Like the Captain said in Starship Troopers as the bugs started destroying the starfleet: Someone made a mistake. Someone made a big goddam mistake!

[danwismar]

Hey, maybe the dude's got his head up his ass, I don't know...

I can't imagine that giving the players union a big win to make them feel empowered and full of themselves can possibly end well in the long run. I hope no one was inferring that from what I said. I'm not even sure Barra's sympathies are totally with the players....hard to tell. Seems to me he just thinks they've got the owners on the run....not that this is necessarily a long term plus for the game.

[gdbenz]

Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners. It won't be a windfall for the players but a reason for them to re-form a union and strike a deal. Teams will spend less, not more, for players. Players who don't want to work cheap will be replaced with players who will. Remember, for every player in the NFL, there's at least 10 others who didn't make it that would take those jobs in a minute.

[jb]

Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners.

So very well crafted.

Seems to me this is the difference between an Upshaw, who was a player, and Smith, who uh, ran a little track at Bluffton, and is a high-powrered career Beltway attorney. One knows whose welfare he was stewarding, the other wants to make a name.

[jb]

I really thought they were smarter than this. I really thought that they would work things out before it got to this point.

Like the Captain said in Starship Troopers as the bugs started destroying the starfleet: Someone made a mistake. Someone made a big goddam mistake!

An post with a ST reference is up there in my book.

[yogi]

Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners. It won't be a windfall for the players but a reason for them to re-form a union and strike a deal. Teams will spend less, not more, for players. Players who don't want to work cheap will be replaced with players who will. Remember, for every player in the NFL, there's at least 10 others who didn't make it that would take those jobs in a minute.

So, maybe there is a silver lining here for the fans after all.

If it went down this way, the owners could win fan approval by lowering ticket prices, direct tv subscriptions, etc. saying there is no need to overpay football players.

Plus we would be entertained by all the crying going on by very large and fast people.

[danwismar]

Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners. It won't be a windfall for the players but a reason for them to re-form a union and strike a deal. Teams will spend less, not more, for players. Players who don't want to work cheap will be replaced with players who will. Remember, for every player in the NFL, there's at least 10 others who didn't make it that would take those jobs in a minute.

Well said, Gary.

But it not like there's no downside for the owners just because they are in possession of the checkbooks. No NFL owner relishes the idea of facing his fans to explain that Brady, Manning or Brees won't be suiting up this year, but not to worry...Joe Blow and Tommy Turd will be there, so come on down to the $500 per seat luxury box anyway.

Again...it seems to me Barra was just suggesting that the issues aren't all that freaking complex...and this court win will make it more likely that the owners will feel compelled to strike some kind of a deal sooner rather than later...and that they will probably "give up" more, rather than less, in the negotiations....not that the court win for players was a positive development long term for the league...let alone the fans.

Agree with JB on this, and I said weeks ago, that the players will come to miss Upshaw more than they know now. In general, I defer to the vastly more informed and knowledgeable folks, like Gary, on these matters.

I'm just the guy seeing my deadline (5/1) for season ticket money creeping up, with the prospect of the opener seeming farther away by the day, instead of closer. Maybe I'm grasping at any positive-looking straw.

[jb]

But it not like there's no downside for the owners just because they are in possession of the checkbooks. No NFL owner relishes the idea of facing his fans to explain that Brady, Manning or Brees won't be suiting up this year, but not to worry...Joe Blow and Tommy Turd will be there, so come on down to the $500 per seat luxury box anyway.

Those guys will suit up, and probably for baseball money because there's enough dumb owners whose egos & resources ( Jerruh ) will cause then to break ranks. But the bottom 40 of the roster will see the downside, I imagine. And you'll see 20 game seasons and year round coaching and whatever else the owners want. The question to me is, with no input from a union, are there ANY limits on owners' power other than OSHA? IOW, does collusion punishment still exist?

The real shame is, can you imagine how Al and Carmine could have exploited this?

I'm just the guy seeing my deadline (5/1) for season ticket money creeping up, with the prospect of the opener seeming farther away by the day, instead of closer. Maybe I'm grasping at any positive-looking straw.

Well, looking at the history of professional sports labor relations, can you find me one instance of the players winning that resulted in anything positive for the fans?

[hiko]

Here's my guess: the Owners are very stubborn people. They've never lost before. They don't intend to start losing now. They probably have a lot more put away for a rainy day then a lot of the players do. They have other revenue streams.

The Players winning this round will not help to speed up negotiations at all. What would've sped up negotiations is if the Players had lost the injunction and knew they were basically in for a screw-job, so take the deal on the table. That was the only way this thing was going away quickly. Now that they think they can "win" this thing, we may be in for the long, ugly haul, b/c the owners don't intend to "lose".

[danwismar]

Well, looking at the history of professional sports labor relations, can you find me one instance of the players winning that resulted in anything positive for the fans?

You didn't take the hint...you're supposed to say something to make me feel better

[daddywags]

Well, if they can't reinstate the lockout, they will have to honor existing contracts (I assume). That means the players get paid whether they play the games or not - at least those who are lucky enough to have contracts at the moment. The most likely scenario in that case is that they suck it up and play the games under some form of "rules" that the league feels minimizes their exposure in litigation (and the rules will be subject to litigation, whatever they are). There will be huge uncertainty about players who were tendered offers under the expired CBA and would have been (still are?) RFAs - how those guys get signed will be very interesting to watch. What sorts of contracts agents and teams enter into for players who don't have contracts now will also be interesting, but I suspect the lawyers are smart enough to figure out a way to do it that is "fair" to both sides (or at least is perceived as fair). It seems to me, the only way games don't get played is if the league is able to sustain the lockout and right now that doesn't look very plausible.

[jb]

tell you what, D wags. Smith knows how to generate massive billable hour for his profession, eh? Lol.

[gdbenz]

To answer a few of the questions posed. If the lockout stays dissolved, the real difficulty will be finding rules that themselves don't violate antitrust laws. The 32 owners can work together in a number of ways, but they can't work together in a way that has a dampening effect on the "market." For example, they can't decide among themselves to adhere to a salary cap or on a standard length for a player contract, or minimum compensations levels or placing restrictions on player movement in any way. In baseball, the owners were twice found guilty of collusion, which is a related concept but not the same. The baseball owners were operating under a collective bargaining agreement that had rules relating to free agency. The owners collectively decided that they wouldn't pay above a certain amount for any player in free agency. That was collusion for which the owners were punished within the context of their collective bargaining agreement. Without a collective bargaining agreement, the football owners become subject to antitrust laws. Thus any collusion on any issue that could be seen as effecting the market, would be a violation of law and subject them to significant financial penalties. That's why the owners are so skittish at the moment about the judge's ruling. Under labor law, when a collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer is bound by law to continue to follow the expired terms until they are either changed at the bargaining table or the employer and the union have bargained to impasse. Upon reaching impasse, the employer is allowed to unilaterally implement its final offer. The problem here though is that the judge ruled that there legally is no union (whether she had the right to make that decision is part of the owners' appeal)and therefore the typical labor law rules don't apply. If the owners just followed the expired collective bargaining agreement, as would be typical, so much of them would be viewed as an antitrust violation, issues like restrictions on free agents, salary caps, etc. That's why the owners are so skittish. Remember, economic restrictions that exist in collective bargaining agreeements don't violate antitrust laws so long as they are part of a collective bargaining agreement or part of an expired collective bargaining agreement where there is still in place a union. The owners' points are legitimate and I think the judge will begin to realize that this is indeed a mess. That doesn't mean she'll change her mind, it just means that she probably didn't really appreciate how confusing of a situation she created by making the ruling she did. Assuming the lockout is dissolved, confusion and dissary will prevail for awhile and ultimately I think the owners just throw up their hands and allow a free for all to exist. Meanwhile, I expect that the antitrust allegations and new lawsuits will continue to flow. Vendors and almost everyone impacted by any decision the owners might collectively make will file lawsuits. For example, the owners couldn't collectively decide on just one vendor for NFL-approved apparel without every other vendor seeking relief in court. Individual teams would have to make their own decisions. If any network television contracts were up for renewal, the owners couldn't act together to negotiate an outcome for the league. Each team would have to negotiate their own deals. It just goes on and on.

[jb]

GB, is it possibl ethe owners could reorganize themselves into a single entity that is the NFL rather than 32 distinct franchises thru some issuance of stock after the formation of a corporation?

[hiko]

GB, is it possible the owners could reorganize themselves into a single entity that is the NFL rather than 32 distinct franchises thru some issuance of stock after the formation of a corporation?

JB got to it as I was writing the same thing...

Gary, maybe you know the answer to this (and I'm full aware that it would never happen), but could the Owners trump all this anti-trust stuff by ceasing to be 32 separate businesses and become one business (the NFL) with 32 branches?

Then that one business could unilaterally apply whatever rules it wanted to across the board. It's not collusion.

I know that the players might cry "monopoly" if they did that, but the CFL, UFL, and AFL do exist...

[daddywags]

Combining the ownership into one entity wouldn't necessarily end the issue, IMO. A court will look to substance over form - although as acknowledged, that could never happen, anyway (how many "shares" does Detroit's ownership get vs. Dallas' ownership or the Redskins?). But all is not lost for the league. In the most recent US Supreme Court decision (unanimous) concerning antitrust and the NFL, we find this:

Football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law. “[T]he special characteristics of this industry may provide a justification” for many kinds of agreements. Brown, 518 U. S., at 252 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.

Which decisions? Well, they didn't say. That's why the lawyers get paid so much money.

[gdbenz]

A couple of things. First, the owners could absolutely re-formulate as a single entity with 32 divisions, but doing so isn't simple. What would have to happen is that each franchise would have to dissolve and the league take over the ownership. Doing that is not a simple task because every team is a well established corporation with debt on their books that could become immediately due and payable upon a disolution of the business. There are a lot of other complications to it, but technically speaking it could be done to avoid the anti trust problem. Indeed, if you note almost all of the other new leagues that have formed over the years have tried just that approach--to have the league own the franchises as wholly-owned subsdiaries. This was done precisely to avoid anti trust issues. The model is difficult to execute but far easier if you're starting from scratch. Second, there are a whole whose of non-economic decisions that could be collectively made by the 32 separate teams that wouldn't run afoul of antitrust laws. The key issues that makes the league successful,however, are all virtually economic in nature--salary caps, minimum salaries, television contracts, the draft, free agency restrictions, etc. Those would never pass scrutiny under antitrust laws, something that the owners already know full well.

[hiko]

A couple of things. First, the owners could absolutely re-formulate as a single entity with 32 divisions, but doing so isn't simple. What would have to happen is that each franchise would have to dissolve and the league take over the ownership. Doing that is not a simple task because every team is a well established corporation with debt on their books that could become immediately due and payable upon a disolution of the business. There are a lot of other complications to it, but technically speaking it could be done to avoid the anti trust problem. Indeed, if you note almost all of the other new leagues that have formed over the years have tried just that approach--to have the league own the franchises as wholly-owned subsdiaries. This was done precisely to avoid anti trust issues. The model is difficult to execute but far easier if you're starting from scratch. Second, there are a whole whose of non-economic decisions that could be collectively made by the 32 separate teams that wouldn't run afoul of antitrust laws. The key issues that makes the league successful,however, are all virtually economic in nature--salary caps, minimum salaries, television contracts, the draft, free agency restrictions, etc. Those would never pass scrutiny under antitrust laws, something that the owners already know full well.

While that may be true, the league could also incorporate itself and then "acquire" the 32 franchises - thus puchasing all their debt and contracts via the merger - could they not?

Well, 31 franchises, because Al Davis would never do it. So the Oakland Raiders could join the UFL, and the new NFL Inc. could simply establish a new "branch" in Los Angeles.

[e0y2e3]

SBJLizMullen: Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."

As pissed as I am about them fucking with the NBA situation I am really looking forward to the comedy of the next 24 hours.

Just one owner needs to breakout and sign someone.

[hiko]

SBJLizMullen: Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."

As pissed as I am about them fucking with the NBA situation I am really looking forward to the comedy of the next 24 hours.

Just one owner needs to breakout and sign someone.

Gee, why hasn't anyone done that yet?

Even Big Al doesn't want to wake up with a horse head in his bed.

[gdbenz]

Following up. The league certainly could acquire each and every franchise, presuming each and every franchise decided to sell to the league. Thus while theoretically possible, it's not realistic. The league literally would have to buy each franchise, a multi-multi billion dollar proposition. That means every owner would have to be willing to sell to the league and that isn't realistic either. Without a legitimate transaction of that nature, any other move would be seen for what it is, a sham to try and get around the the anti-trust laws. Second, my guess is that you won't see any free agent signings or trades until the owners get some clarity from the court of appeals. Judge Nelson denying the stay was expected. The owners filed an appeal asking for expedited consideration. The court of appeals may not decide to grant expedited consideration, meaning that they'll place the owners' appeal on their regular docket and let the several month process play out in that fashion. Either way, I don't think the court of appeals grants a stay of the district court's ruling, though it could. Assuming it does not, the league will move forward in some fashion during all of this but I still wouldn't expect much action on the signing front. Without knowing what kind of salary rules might end up going into effect or, really, any of the other economic circumstances under which a disjointed league like this might play, I think you'll see every owner approach this very cautiously. There may be a little action, but ultimately the union will complain that this is unlawful collusion and then amend their lawsuit accordingly. There is further mediation scheduled for May 16 but I don't think it will be successful unless a block of owners becomes frustrated with the whole thing and forces the rest of that group to re-trench on the positions they've taken. The players certainly won't be capitulating on anything. I read yesterday where Scott Fujita is crediting DeMaurice Smith for saving football. That's the scary level of misinformation that the players are operating under. Smith isn't saving football, he's destroying it.