Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Agreed.  Owners could easily appeal that, however.

    Just make sure they don't go back into the District 8 Court of Appeals. lol
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : Hah . .  well Florio's interpretation doesn't matter. The judge's, though, has the force of law. His ruling could be appealed, but I wouldn't bet on the NFL winning the appeal. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    That would depend on the judge but they really don't have to win an appeal. They just need to tie things up in court for a while. These types of cases can drag on for ages and the general Tactic is to keep changing venues until you get the ruling you want. They will most likely have an agreement by then.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Great discussion of the facts folks.  Thanks.  I learned even more from your posts.

    God I hope there's going to be a season this year, I don't think I could take a steady diet of these participants fighting it out in court, it just does not have the immediacy of our team making third and long at the goal line against the YETS or the Dolts or..............

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    I could be wrong (someone who's a lawyer jump in here), but I think if they appeal, they have to appeal in the District in which the case was heard, which means the 8th would be it.

    As far as tying up the case for any extended period, I think that helps the players more than the NFL, since the judge's ruling probably limits the league's ability to get its hands on any money until the appeals are resolved.  Seems to me the owners would want this one resolved as quickly as possible.  

     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]I could be wrong (someone who's a lawyer jump in here), but I think if they appeal, they have to appeal in the District in which the case was heard, which means the 8th would be it. As far as tying up the case for any extended period, I think that helps the players more than the NFL, since the judge's ruling probably limits the league's ability to get its hands on any money until the appeals are resolved.  Seems to me the owners would want this one resolved as quickly as possible.    
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Same circuit Different judge. The case was heard By the District court and would be escalated to the Appellate court with a new judge. These judges are all handpicked by politicians based on where they stand politically. They would just need to work it untill they get a judge who is conservatively biased. A game the unions are all too familiar with. As far as their money being tied up, these owners have more money than anybody and are well equipped to stand the test of time. It's also worth it for them to lose a little bit short term to get a lot more back in the long run. If the NHL could afford it the NFL certainly can.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Very good article in Forbes about why Doty's ruling could help accelerate owners and players coming to an agreement:


    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/02/nfl-players-legal-victory-should-help-avoid-a-lockout/

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    If that's what this does, then great.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re:  These judges are all handpicked by politicians based on where they stand politically. They would just need to work it untill they get a judge who is conservatively biased. A game the unions are all too familiar with. Posted by Rerun85[/QUOTE]

    Doty was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]If that's what this does, then great.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. I think this evens out the negotiation and I guess that either makes a deal more likely (because the owners won't push as hard for concessions which the players will resist tooth and nail) or less likely (because neither party is able to dominate). 

    The decertification decision (which has to either happen by midnight tomorrow or be delayed for at least six months) is a big one.  Interesting to see what happens next.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : Doty was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Yup.  But, that doesn;t mean much.

    Reagan also appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court.  I would argue Reagan's appointments were not very political/party based, but based much more so on merit.

    I guess it just supports the idea that Reagan was not a neo-conservative whatsoever.

    Small gov't/laissez-faire gov't approach, sure, but not some right wing neo type.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    None of the money effected in this ruleing would come into play till sept. when the season would start. So this ruleing for now essentialy is a nonfactor especialy since it will be tied up in appeals at least for the near forseable future. As long as a ruleing rests against the NFLPA they will keep the funds tied up in escrow with appeals at least till a new CBA is agreed upon. And as long as a ruleing rests against the NFL they also will maintain appeals till a settlement can be arived at with the next CBA. So for now and at least till sept. when the season would have started nothing unexpected has happened or changed in the eyes of the participants and no influence on the CBA discussions has occured. The media may play this up all they can to the ordinary fans for the sake of publicity but the participant in this case both know that for now nothing has changed.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    From what I read that TV money is actually a loan that has to be paid back with intrest once a new CBA is approved.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In 2009 (after voting to end the CBA and anticipating a lock out), the NFL owners renegotiated broadcast deals that required the networks to pay the league money if the season was cancelled in 2011 because of a lock out.  Some of that money would have to be repaid (in the future) if games weren't played, some (the testimony shows) would not have to be repaid.  The NFL was expecting $4 billion in revenue in 2011 even if a lock out occured because of these TV deals. This $4 billion would have made it easy for the owners to risk losing a season (because they'd still have strong cash flow while the lock out was occurring).

    What the decision yesterday said was basically that in negotiating those deals (which benefit the league and not the players), the league did not meet its obligations under the current CBA to negotiate to maximize revenues for both players and the league.  The judge will have a hearing to determine what is to be done to rectify the situation.  The two possibilities I've heard discussed are (1) the league has to share those revenues with the players during the lockout (and/or possibly pay the players damages) or (2) the revenues will be held in escrow until a new CBA is signed.  Either way, the $4 billion the owners were relying on to fund their businesses during a possible canceled 2011 season is no longer by any means certain to be available to them.  The $4 billion "war chest" the owners thought they had may have evaporated -- or even been transfered to the players!

    Nope . . . that changes nothing.  (LOL)
     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : So let's see what happens. If it speeds up negotiations and they get something hammered that's good for everybody. I'm not convinced it will and any of the articles I have read have a lot of "ifs, maybes and opinions".
    Posted by Rerun85[/QUOTE]

    Agreed . . . believe me, a quick, fair solution is what I'd like.  I've already contributed a few thousand bucks to one particular owner's revenue for 2011 . . .  would like to see some games in return for that!


    FYI . . . another article that suggests this may help accelerate a deal: 

    http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110302/FREE/110309958#

    Interesting observation that the networks might be just as delighted by the ruling as the players . . .  
     
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : Agreed . . . believe me, a quick, fair solution is what I'd like.  I've already contributed a few thousand bucks to one particular owner's revenue for 2011 . . .  would like to see some games in return for that! FYI . . . another article that suggests this may help accelerate a deal:  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110302/FREE/110309958 # Interesting observation that the networks might be just as delighted by the ruling as the players . . .    
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Wow..Did I say something bad enough to have my posts deleted. That's weird.

    I will say that I found it interesting that the League pretty much blackmailed the networks.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In 2009 (after voting to end the CBA and anticipating a lock out), the NFL owners renegotiated broadcast deals that required the networks to pay the league money if the season was cancelled in 2011 because of a lock out.  Some of that money would have to be repaid (in the future) if games weren't played, some (the testimony shows) would not have to be repaid.  The NFL was expecting $4 billion in revenue in 2011 even if a lock out occured because of these TV deals. This $4 billion would have made it easy for the owners to risk losing a season (because they'd still have strong cash flow while the lock out was occurring). What the decision yesterday said was basically that in negotiating those deals (which benefit the league and not the players), the league did not meet its obligations under the current CBA to negotiate to maximize revenues for both players and the league.  The judge will have a hearing to determine what is to be done to rectify the situation.  The two possibilities I've heard discussed are (1) the league has to share those revenues with the players during the lockout (and/or possibly pay the players damages) or (2) the revenues will be held in escrow until a new CBA is signed.  Either way, the $4 billion the owners were relying on to fund their businesses during a possible canceled 2011 season is no longer by any means certain to be available to them.  The $4 billion "war chest" the owners thought they had may have evaporated -- or even been transfered to the players! Nope . . . that changes nothing.  (LOL)  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    If you wish to decipher the full document here is the link:
    http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout%20Insurance%20Case%20Decision.pdf

    What it breaks down to is a district judge disagrees with an interpretation of the legal verbage of the special master who originaly ruled favorably for the NFL. If you consider this the end of the process you are mistaken. The contracted payments to the NFL would not have comenced till the NFL season would have started in Sept. six full months from now. So, as of now nothing has changed for the parties involved other than the next step in the litigation process will start. If you think that the legal teams involved for the NFL were too ignorent to forsee this possible step in the process without knowing their next move you are decieveing yourself. And if you ever thought that either side did not anticipate a challenge to the contracted document you were decieved. This along with the NFLs challenge of the NFLPA ability to decertify are mearly tools of leverage in the barganing process of the CBA. All litigation will not cease till a CBA is agreed upon, and nothing will change hands. You must realize the use of the words "may" in your argument allows for the opposite to happen even though you try to give the interperatatin one side has prevailed. And the other possibility you have not for seen is that the district judges oppinion "may " be overturned on appeal.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    I see your posts Rerun. I guess you wern't as bad a stinky bad boy as you thought.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]I see your posts Rerun. I guess you wern't as bad a stinky bad boy as you thought.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]

    There were a couple deleted for some reason. At least they didn't axe me all together.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

     Heck I'm on identy 3 now. I spelt pisstburg using the "S" word. I wish they would let you know when your lit up. Reminds me of a chat room when people quit, get their new identity pack exiting and come back in the next day as someone else. lol
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from expertmike. Show expertmike's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals


    1. It will be hard to prove that (advantages over players) as intent. 

    2. The owners re-negotiating with the tv deals may not be a violation of their own deal under the CBA with the players, whatsoever.

    3. I fail to see how what the owners get paid during a lockout has to do with a previously negotiated CBA where the players were honored under the CBA in full the entire time.


    BBReigns,

    Regarding #1 -  It doesn't matter whether the owners intented their special TV deal to benefit them at the expense of the players. I guess we're to believe that agreement was accidental. What the court ruled today was that the owner special "lockout" TV deal DOES violate their CBA agreement with the players which, at the time the special "lockout" TV deal was negotiated, was in-place.

    #2 - Again, the court ruled that the owners special "lockout" TV deal was a violation - so it is. 

    3. I fail to see how what the owners get paid during a lockout has to do with a previously negotiated CBA where the players were honored under the CBA in full the entire time.

    Because the owners negotiated that deal at a time when there was an NFL made-up of players and owners -- but the terms of the deal benefited only the owners, at the expense of the players.  Ask yourself, could the owners alone - say the players were locked-out with no games - could the owners get the TV networks to give them a deal?  Without the players the owners have nothing to make tv networks willing to part with so much money. 



     

     


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : There were a couple deleted for some reason. At least they didn't axe me all together.
    Posted by Rerun85[/QUOTE]


    It's weird those disappeared Rerun . . .  there was nothing "bad" in those posts. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    I'd like to add, as I was saying yesterday, the union has to de-certify to file an injunction based on Judge Doty's ruling.

    So, without de-certifying they cannot file the injunction in court.

    Just wanted to clear that up.

    I still have no idea how a union can claim to be effective, only to not be functional, when it wants to use a piece of apparent leverage during a negotiation.

    I'll never understand that approach and how it does justice to what the union is supposed to represent.

     

Share