RT @AlbertBreer: Judge Nelson has ruled: Injunction to lift NFL lockout granted. NO stay. Owners certain to seek stay from 8th circuit
Sort of irrelevant until the appeals process plays itself out, but what happens if this is upheld. If there's no collective bargaining, is it a total free for all? No salary cap, no free agency rules, no steroids testing, etc? I assume nothing that was collectively bargained would apply any more. And since the union disbanded, there's no union to collectively bargain a new agreement?
Tyrannical judges need to mind their own business. tired of labor using force to win negotiations when they don't get their way. Boeing is having the same problem, it's an epidemic.
Irrelevant. They couldn't come to an agreement, so be it, both sides walk away. You don't use force to compel an outcome that isn't mutually agreeable.
Two parties couldn't reach an agreement, so one party gets the law to compel action of the other party. That's not how negotiations should work.
Let us not forget that there was no CBA from 1987 through 93. There is precedence for them to play on w/o an agreement. I don't think that's going to happen this time...but it's possible. The players can, in theory, show up at team facilities tomorrow morning assuming no stay is granted overnight. I don't know if this is good or bad but I don't exactly see it continuing on. I think the owners will win on appeal sometime before the draft on Thursday. I side with the players on many of the issues, but not this whole "the union dissolved" thing. I agree with the owners that it's a sham. This is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better.
Unions using force of law as leverage in contract negotiations is a problem. Can't have fair negotiations when one side has the trump card of coercion.
What would stop an owner from going out and signing all the top draft picks before the draft and any further ruling takes place? Why isn't bob mcnair not offering miller, peterson, et al big contracts to sign with texans.
Think of it this way, players have a right to strike but owners don't have a right to lockout, how is that fair?
- using "force of law" when interpreting contracts, as the NFL and the NFLPA are doing here - where contracts are defined as legally enforceable promises - "is a problem"? That is so ****ing stupid it makes me want to hit myself on the head with a shovel in order to cleanse myself of the fear that my viscous humors have been compromised and tainted by mere proximity to your heavily compromised, Fukushima-dome core of pure stupid, which is leaking tardicles at an incredible rate. Please flood yourself with seawater and try to contain further eruptions.
