Quote from: winsomme on July 04, 2011, 04:32:51 PM

I mean the judgement so far has essentially favored the players, no?

The temporary stay in the Eighth Circuit actually favors the owners, and it's expected that when (if) the court rules, it will be in favor of the owners.

The Player's Union can go the decertification route, but all it's likely to accomplish in the long-run is cost millions in legal fees, and a firm precedent against them.

Yes, the current outlook is thee owners are likely to win the particular case regarding the players having a right to stop the owners from locking them out.

The other battle yet to be determined is if the owners would have to pay the players eventually.  I highly doubt any of the current contracts have provisions that allow the owners to not fulfill otherwise legally binding contracts absent an active CBA.  Just don't see how it could possibly be legal.  How long before the owners would have to pay, if they have to, is debatable.

I think the courts may have hinted at this as well.  They have said neither side will be happy with the outcome, if a legal decision is forced.   I believe this is the main reason the courts are allowing the owners and players to try to agree first.

They have said neither side will be happy with the outcome, if a legal decision is forced.   I believe this is the main reason the courts are allowing the owners and players to try to agree first.

which is why the NBA players should decertify because right now they have no leverage.

like the wages of wins article pointed out, many NBA owners are horribly mismanaging their teams and the main hemorrhage in money is the money spent on things other than players' salaries.

that certainly would become more clear if the courts get involved.

Quote from: winsomme on July 04, 2011, 08:14:25 PM

Quote from: Roy H. on July 04, 2011, 05:00:28 PM

Quote from: winsomme on July 04, 2011, 04:32:51 PM

I mean the judgement so far has essentially favored the players, no?

The temporary stay in the Eighth Circuit actually favors the owners, and it's expected that when (if) the court rules, it will be in favor of the owners.

The Player's Union can go the decertification route, but all it's likely to accomplish in the long-run is cost millions in legal fees, and a firm precedent against them.

expected based on what?

The stay favored mediation IMO not the owners. I mean the players and owners have never been closer than they are now and that is definitely due in part to the players early victories in court.

I think you're confused. The owners have won the last two decisions related to the stay. Legal analysts expect the owners to win on the merits.  The players winning the initial decision is irrelevant, because that decision isn't in effect right now and every serious legal scholar expects the owners to prevailin the next step.

not confused. people disagreeing with you Roy doesn't make them confused.

the recent court of appeals decisions only related to what happens until the court actually rules on the case.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6737634

There also is the wild card of a pending ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the players' antitrust lawsuit against the league, which was filed in Minneapolis and prompted Boylan's involvement as a mediator.

The appellate judges won't wait forever, and one of them warned earlier that neither side will like their decision on the legality of the lockout. But a faction on the players' side believes it's worth waiting on the court's ruling, and the owners have had plans in place for years to endure an extended work stoppage

As just about everyone predicted, the Court of Appeals overturned the original District Judge's order today, ruling, among other things, that the District Court didn't have jurisdiction to enjoin the owners' lockout and that the judge departed from the plain text of Federal law:

You can find news blurbs all over the place, but for the text of the decision, see here.

Quote from: KGs Knee on July 04, 2011, 05:54:40 PM

They have said neither side will be happy with the outcome, if a legal decision is forced.   I believe this is the main reason the courts are allowing the owners and players to try to agree first.

which is why the NBA players should decertify because right now they have no leverage.

like the wages of wins article pointed out, many NBA owners are horribly mismanaging their teams and the main hemorrhage in money is the money spent on things other than players' salaries.

that certainly would become more clear if the courts get involved.

OK, here is the question for lawyers...is it illegal for an organization to want to collective bargain a system that regulates salaries in a manner that maintains a system that is financially viable?

Even if it is the teams fault for "mismanaging" their teams, does that mean anything?  As an organization, can't they recognize that the system is causing them to "mismanage" things, and then put a new system in place that helps prevent that?

I just don't see what a court would have to say about that.

Quote from: winsomme on July 04, 2011, 08:19:28 PM

Quote from: KGs Knee on July 04, 2011, 05:54:40 PM

They have said neither side will be happy with the outcome, if a legal decision is forced.   I believe this is the main reason the courts are allowing the owners and players to try to agree first.

which is why the NBA players should decertify because right now they have no leverage.

like the wages of wins article pointed out, many NBA owners are horribly mismanaging their teams and the main hemorrhage in money is the money spent on things other than players' salaries.

that certainly would become more clear if the courts get involved.

OK, here is the question for lawyers...is it illegal for an organization to want to collective bargain a system that regulates salaries in a manner that maintains a system that is financially viable?

Even if it is the teams fault for "mismanaging" their teams, does that mean anything?  As an organization, can't they recognize that the system is causing them to "mismanage" things, and then put a new system in place that helps prevent that?

I just don't see what a court would have to say about that.

A system that manages salary like this could easily be considered price fixing which would be illegal under anti-trust laws.

Quote from: Chris on July 08, 2011, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: winsomme on July 04, 2011, 08:19:28 PM

Quote from: KGs Knee on July 04, 2011, 05:54:40 PM

They have said neither side will be happy with the outcome, if a legal decision is forced.   I believe this is the main reason the courts are allowing the owners and players to try to agree first.

which is why the NBA players should decertify because right now they have no leverage.

like the wages of wins article pointed out, many NBA owners are horribly mismanaging their teams and the main hemorrhage in money is the money spent on things other than players' salaries.

that certainly would become more clear if the courts get involved.

OK, here is the question for lawyers...is it illegal for an organization to want to collective bargain a system that regulates salaries in a manner that maintains a system that is financially viable?

Even if it is the teams fault for "mismanaging" their teams, does that mean anything?  As an organization, can't they recognize that the system is causing them to "mismanage" things, and then put a new system in place that helps prevent that?

I just don't see what a court would have to say about that.

A system that manages salary like this could easily be considered price fixing which would be illegal under anti-trust laws.

Well, there are a lot of things that would not be legal under other circumstances, that are allowed in collective bargaining.