NBA files federal lawsuit against players

[Twinkie defense]

This offseason the NFL tried to argue that the decertifcation was a sham and the courts didn't buy into it yet again.

Ultimately, even though the NFLPA decertified, the upper court rejected Judge Nelson's reasoning and refused to put a stop to the lockout.

[killbuckner]

Ultimately, even though the NFLPA decertified, the upper court rejected Judge Nelson's reasoning and refused to put a stop to the lockout.

The appeals court only ruled that they were prevented by law from stopping the lockout with an injunction. That the players would have to wait for it to go to trial but they would then be entitled to triple damages.

[DBoys]

The appeals court only ruled that they were prevented by law from stopping the lockout with an injunction. That the players would have to wait for it to go to trial but they would then be entitled to triple damages.

The 8th said, "The players would have to wait for it to go to trial but they would then be entitled to triple damages" ????? Ummm no, they didn't say that.

The 8th didn't even opine if there might be damages or not, if the union filed another suit. And they ruled entirely in the league's favor in the matter appealed to them.

[killbuckner]

The 8th didn't even opine if there might be damages or not

The penalty for the NFL losing at trial would be triple damages was all I was trying to say. And From Judge Nelsons ruling I think its pretty clear which side she believes would prevail.

[DBoys]

The 8th didn't even opine if there might be damages or not

The penalty for the NFL losing at trial would be triple damages was all I was trying to say. And From Judge Nelsons ruling I think its pretty clear which side she believes would prevail.

Judge Nelson isn't a judge on the 8th. She's the one whose decisions were entirely overturned.

[killbuckner]

Judge Nelson isn't a judge on the 8th. She's the one whose decisions were entirely overturned.

You should know better than that this long into the conversation. The ONLY thing the appeals court overturned was whether the NLGA prevented her from granting an injunction. They didn't say ANYTHING in their ruling to make anyone think that they would overturn Judge Nelson if the case were to go to trial. And Judge Nelson would be the judge if it went that far.

[DBoys]

They didn't say ANYTHING in their ruling to make anyone think that they would overturn Judge Nelson if the case were to go to trial.

You're trying to assert some sort of victory for the union there, and they gained absolutely nothing at all.

The 8th didn't say anything in their ruling to indicate they would support Nelson if she ruled again in favor of the union ...and the simple bottom line is, they shot down 100% of what she ruled in favor of the union. Within a matter of weeks, the union dropped the case entirely. If you're seeing some sort of victory for the union in that, I think you're simply fooling yourself.

[DBoys]

They pointed to a statement from a law professor which is about the equivalent of an op-ed.

A ruling by an NBA arbitrator ...on NBA matters ...which is providing binding legal interpretation on an existing labor pact between league and union ...said ruling being given after testimony in front of the arbitrator and as-best-as-they-can-fashion legal arguments by each side ...and a ruling that, once issued, has the force of law on both parties ...
...and you equate that to a outsider offering their opinion, in a hypothetical treatise, with no testimony or arguments given to him, and with no requirement to be unbiased?

Surely you're just playing your chosen role of extreme advocate for the players here. Otherwise, that's silly. And of course it's clearly wrong.

Feerick is the legal expert on labor law that was appointed by both union and league to be the interpreter of the CBA for both parties, when there was a dispute. As such, yes his ruling has the force of law to those parties as regards the CBA and its impact on both parties.

For the NBA to now say they are simply asking for consistency to that prior ruling by Feerick, under which 100% of the contracts in question were signed and in which shadow they offered contracts, is an extremely strong and perhaps compelling argument. If the union wasn't cognizant of this ruling, I bet they had an "Oh s***" moment when they saw the lawsuit.

In addition, in court they certainly won't take a dismissive attitude like you did towards Feerick's words. That would be suicide, and we all recognize that fact.

Their best hope will be to try to assert that what Feerick said doesn't mean what the NBA is saying, or that it doesn't apply in the way the NBA says it does. But I believe they'll probably have an uphill battle, because the NBA's stance (and Feeerick's ruling) are completely consistent with the way both the league and the union have treated previously signed contracts in one NBA labor dispute after another. We can't ignore the fact that this issue is governed significantly by the standing relationship between the NBA and NBAPA, and the CBA (including its context and rulings regarding it) as it existed and under which said contracts were signed. Those will completely trump "general labor law" should the NBAPA let the matter go to a decision (and given their likelihood of suffering a crushing loss, I think they'll seek and find a way to avoid a decision).

[killbuckner]

they shot down 100% of what she ruled in favor of the union.

Ridiculous. If you think this then you clearly didn't read Nelson's ruling. Please read what I actually said since I never claimed it was a victory for the players.

"They didn't say ANYTHING in their ruling to make anyone think that they would overturn Judge Nelson if the case were to go to trial.'

The Eighth circuit said that the NLGA prevented Nelson from granting an injunction. That meant the players had to wait until trial for the lockout to be delclared illegal, but if the players won at trial then the remedy would be treble damages. The owners also started offering more after the ruling because the players missing paychecks and them potentially owing treble damages on that would have been an immense number.

[killbuckner]

Feerick is the legal expert on labor law that was appointed by both union and league to be the interpreter of the CBA for both parties, when there was a dispute. As such, yes his ruling has the force of law to those parties as regards the CBA and its impact on both parties.

Ridiculous. Put it this way- the CBA had already expired when Feerick made this ruling. The NBA argued that he shouldn't even be ruling on the matter and its a 100% certainty that they would have appealed his ruling in court if he had ruled against the owners. Feericks decision is irrelevant to how the courts would decide a legal matter.

[DBoys]

Feerick is the legal expert on labor law that was appointed by both union and league to be the interpreter of the CBA for both parties, when there was a dispute. As such, yes his ruling has the force of law to those parties as regards the CBA and its impact on both parties.

Ridiculous. Put it this way- the CBA had already expired when Feerick made this ruling. The NBA argued that he shouldn't even be ruling on the matter and its a 100% certainty that they would have appealed his ruling in court if he had ruled against the owners. Feericks decision is irrelevant to how the courts would decide a legal matter.

Desperately try to deny the decision any way you want, but the fact is that Feerick was the NBA-union arbitrator, at the time he was deemed to be the proper one to make the binding decision, and both sides accepted his ruling without appeal.

As such, his ruling is completely relevant - and in fact, it is DEFINING as to the framework under which the contracts in question were offered. There's no way to put that genie back in the bottle, now that those contracts have all been done within the prevailing context that he created. And denial is certainly not the answer that will rescue the union. (I think they recognize their untenable situation and therefore they'll try to avoid a decision any way they can.)

[DBoys]

they shot down 100% of what she ruled in favor of the union.

Ridiculous. If you think this then you clearly didn't read Nelson's ruling.

Why read something that's trash, as if it matters? Nelson's ruling was one creating an injunction. The 8th's ruling shot down 100% of the injunction and therefore her ruling. That put the union (and Nelson) back at square one, if they wanted to pursue things further.

But the union saw the handwriting on the wall, and walked away from the case.

At this point, her "ruling" is worth even less than an op-ed piece. It's an overruled decision, a legal opinion that's been proven to be junk and tossed in the trash by a higher court.

[killbuckner]

At this point, her "ruling" is worth even less than an op-ed piece. It's an overruled decision, a legal opinion that's been proven to be junk and tossed in the trash by a higher court.

We have had one judge give their opinion on whether the lockout was legal or not. (which is a different question for whether the lockout could be stopped by injunction. If the Lockout were to be declared illegal then the players would get treble damages for all time missed. The fact you have no interest in reading a judge's legal reasoning for why the lockout is likely illegal shows that you really have no interest in the legal aspect of all this.

You can pretend that the eighth circuit completely disagreed with Judge Nelson. In the end 2 of the 3 judges disagreed with her only on whether the NLGA prevented an injunction. And remember the third judge also agreed with Judge nelson so it is not clear how a different circuit would rule.

[killbuckner]

Desperately try to deny the decision any way you want, but the fact is that Feerick was the NBA-union arbitrator, at the time he was deemed to be the proper one to make the binding decision, and both sides accepted his ruling without appeal.

The CBA had expired- Feerick was the one who declared that he still had jurisdiction even though the NBA thought he did not. And there wasn't any reason for the players to appeal since federal labor law had made it rather clear that when there is a union then an employer can lockout employees without pay during a labor dispute. If Feerick had ruled in favor of the NBA players it is a CERTAINTY that the NBA would have appealed to the courts because Feericks decision would be irrelevant if federal labor law disagreed. Maybe you can think the LAW he based his decision on was correct, but the dicta in his decision is absolutely irrelevant.

[DBoys]

The 8th overturned Nelson's ruling completely. You're in denial when you keep trying to claim some sort of victory for the players in all of that. At best, they ended up back where they started and gained nothing. At worst, they now have the 8th on record as having ruled for the NFL not them, and have lost ground.

Same principle with Feerick and the NBA.

In each of those rulings, which provided a final decision, you're trying to excusify (and thereby downplay) the outcome. But woulda-coulda's are incredibly weak arguments.

Focusing on the NBA, what your excusiness misses is that in the wake of Feerick's ruling, the NBA's later contracts were based on the content of that ruling. Every time an NBA team offered $X for X years, it was with the knowledge that their system arbitrator's ruling was that those contracts were inextricably tied to the union and CBA. The union can't now claim otherwise, and they can't put that genie back in the bottle apart from negotiating for it (which they have not done). If the players failed to appeal but should have, at this point they'll be living with that blunder.