Thank you eighth district court

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

    Thank you eighth district court

    If you haven't heard the eighth district court overruled the district court today, saying that the lockout is in fact legal.

    Why this is important to us. Well as it stands the owners are desperate for a deal to be reached before the lose of pre-season revenue. So, regardless of the decision they want a new CBA very soon. However, if the eight district court upheld the previous ruling this would have given the leverage completely to the players at this point and might have blown up negotiations. With the lockout being consided legal it puts great strain on the players to make a deal before they start to miss paychecks. This ruling essentially keeps pressure on both sides to finish negotiations quickly before either starts to see money leaving their pockets.

    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/43684675/ns/sports-player_news/
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BB-IS-BEST. Show BB-IS-BEST's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    Yes, I would say we could see a new CBA within the next few days because of this ruling. It definitely adds urgency to the situation. I think both sides are going to have to give a lot to get this deal done which could be good or bad. Regardless, I just want this to end.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    I want a CBA to get done but if its the right one. No added games to the schedule, a new rookie pay scale, and better bennies for the retired players. If they drop the ball on any of that just to get it done then its a mistake IMO. I want football but I dont want to have to go through this 3 years from now all over again cause they rushed into an agreement.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life

    I have to say I don't understand the benefits for retired players.  They make absurd amounts of money, can't they buy into a 401K, or any retirement plan.  Or just put money in the bank.  That's all they will do in a contract anyway, is deduct some money out of their paycheck and invest it for them.  They really didn't need a new CBA to do that though, they could have done it themselves or the union could have put it together.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court : I have to say I don't understand the benefits for retired players.  They make absurd amounts of money, can't they buy into a 401K, or any retirement plan.  Or just put money in the bank.  That's all they will do in a contract anyway, is deduct some money out of their paycheck and invest it for them.  They really didn't need a new CBA to do that though, they could have done it themselves or the union could have put it together.
    Posted by shenanigan


    Right on.  So much nonsense in this country about retirement benefits.  Take care of your own retirement.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    I'm with MVP on this. It's mainly for the players from the 70's through the late 90's. A lot of which never struck it rich over their careers but still came away with long term injuries from playing. The Beni's need to cover long term health cost and provide some type of income for the players who were working part time jobs during the off season just to get by. Now a days we look at current players and wonder where all their money went but looking back the low tier players in past decades bearly made enough to survive and with injuries and concussions need a helping hand. A player who made under a certain amount should get some type of income from the league and current players for helping to build the league when revenues were counted in the tens of millions not the billions (not talking much maybe 20k a year) and all retired players should get some type of health beni's after the abuse they put themselves though. It's only right to the older players. Modern players though make enough that they should know how to plan for retirement, but they still need long term health benefits
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

      Correct me if I am wrong but dont they already have coverage for injuries and long term problems caused by those injuries, that happened during thier playing days?
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    They do not. I think they get a small pension like 5k with a little more for each year they played or 30k if they played for 10 yrs. But since most don't play more then 3 years the pension is minimal. If I remember right they get 5 years of health service after retirement and 10 years long term injury health care but after that it's gone. With all of the above requiring 3 years of service in the league.

    But that's all I remember reading about and I could be wrong since I'm going off something I remember like 2 months ago. It's actually pretty bad benefits. State workers get better benefits and pensions then ex nfl players do and the State is losing billions every year not making it
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    Lifting an injunction and allowing the lockout to continue is not the same thing as determining wither the lockout is either legal or illegal.  All it means is that the Appeals Court believes the lockout should be allowed to continue.  I only skimmed their latest decision, but as with their earlier decision, the court arrived at their conclusion primarily on jurisdictional grounds (they didn't believe the district court had the power to issue an injunction against the lockout).  If the players' case were to go to trial, it is still quite possible a jury would find the lockout in violation of anti-trust laws.  In today's decision, the court concludes by saying:

    Given our conclusion that the preliminary injunction did not conform to the

    provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, we need not reach the other points raised by

    the League on appeal. In particular, we express no view on whether the League’s

    nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws continues after the union’s

    disclaimer.

     

    The first sentence in blue explains that their conclusion to allow the lockout to stand is based on the jurisdictional issues arising out of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions on lockouts in certain situations.  The second  in red is the court very explicitly stating that their ruling expresses no opinion at all on the key point in the players' lawsuit, which is that, once the union decertifies, the league has no "exemption" from antitrust law and that the league's practices are, in the absence of such an exemption, in violation of antitrust law. 

     

    It seems like a lot of posters here really truly hope US law gives employers the right to force employees to stay unionized if unionization benefits the employers, but the court hasn't gone that far yet. 

     

    All of this, though, probably doesn't matter, because the two sides are clearly both interested in settling now.  

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    Thankfully, the owners stepped up and showed genuine interest in making a series of counter-proposals. I didn't hear of one union-led move to propose. 
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing


    The union was the group that originally proposed the 50-50 split of all revenue which is apparently the basis of what is being discussed today.  The union proposed that back in February and the owners dismissed it out of hand.  If the owners had taken it seriously, maybe we would have been where we are today back in March. 
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    Lifting an injunction and allowing the lockout to continue is not the same thing as determining wither the lockout is either legal or illegal.  All it means is that the Appeals Court believes the lockout should be allowed to continue.  I only skimmed their latest decision, but as with their earlier decision, the court arrived at their conclusion primarily on jurisdictional grounds (they didn't believe the district court had the power to issue an injunction against the lockout).  If the players' case were to go to trial, it is still quite possible a jury would find the lockout in violation of anti-trust laws.  In today's decision, the court concludes by saying: Given our conclusion that the preliminary injunction did not conform to the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, we need not reach the other points raised by the League on appeal. In particular, we express no view on whether the League’s nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws continues after the union’s disclaimer.   The first sentence in blue explains that their conclusion to allow the lockout to stand is based on the jurisdictional issues arising out of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions on lockouts in certain situations.  The second  in red is the court very explicitly stating that their ruling expresses no opinion at all on the key point in the players' lawsuit, which is that, once the union decertifies, the league has no "exemption" from antitrust law and that the league's practices are, in the absence of such an exemption, in violation of antitrust law.    It seems like a lot of posters here really truly hope US law gives employers the right to force employees to stay unionized if unionization benefits the employers, but the court hasn't gone that far yet.    All of this, though, probably doesn't matter, because the two sides are clearly both interested in settling now.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    Pro - it's the same thing as with OJ. A court found him not guilty but a civil court did find him liable. It's happens all the time and just because a lockout is legal it doesn't mean they went about it the right way so a lawsuit can be heard whether right or wrong.

    BTW I don't think anyone is for a employer keeping the union together because it benefits them but we are against a union claiming to disband when in fact they really aren't. Most unions get away with murder now a days and to see them wiggle through a loop hole because of wording gets under peoples skin. It's also funny that the only times that the union was willing to negiotiate was after the first lockout rulling, when forced by the court, and after it was believed the eighth distict court would overturn it
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court : Pro - it's the same thing as with OJ. A court found him not guilty but a civil court did find him liable. It's happens all the time and just because a lockout is legal it doesn't mean they went about it the right way so a lawsuit can be heard whether right or wrong.

    Not quite sure what you're arguing here Eng, but the court's ruling today has no bearing on whether the lawsuit can go forward or not.  In fact, if a settlement between players and owners weren't imminent (as I suspect it is), I think this ruling would have resulted in the lawsuit being heard sooner rather than later.  The court made no determination about the players' main anti-trust claim.  This is nothing at all like a criminal determination one way and a civil determination a different way.  The main antitrust issues haven't even been examined yet.   

     
    BTW I don't think anyone is for a employer keeping the union together because it benefits them but we are against a union claiming to disband when in fact they really aren't. 
    Posted by PatsEng

    Oh, I think they were dead serious about disbanding and going to antitrust law. I don't think that was just an elaborate bluff to force the owners back to bargaining.  I think it was a calculated (and completely legitimate) decision to go to a free market approach if the owners were going to try to use collective bargaining to put the players at a serious disadvantage. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.  
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Thank you eighth district court

    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court:
    In Response to Re: Thank you eighth district court : I have to say I don't understand the benefits for retired players.  They make absurd amounts of money, can't they buy into a 401K, or any retirement plan.  Or just put money in the bank.  That's all they will do in a contract anyway, is deduct some money out of their paycheck and invest it for them.  They really didn't need a new CBA to do that though, they could have done it themselves or the union could have put it together.
    Posted by shenanigan

    I think he meant the currently retired players who might have played for peanuts?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share