I'm sure you've heard by now that the three judges in the 8th Circuit Court upheld the 'stay' of Judge Nelson's decision to stop the owner's lock out of the players because of their decision to decertify the player's union. BigBlueShoe over at the Colts blog has a good post on the decision:
As we stated before, the moment the 'temporary' stay was granted and we read the dissenting opinion, we knew the permanent one would be as well. Just like the 'temporary' stay, two schmucks voted for, one dissented.
The two who voted for the stay state that the players aren't suffering harm and that, essentially, Nelson's decision is meaningless and full of crap. Judge Kermit Dye, who dissented against the 'emergency' stay, dissented strongly against this permanent one.
It's a good read that finishes with a quote from a Patriots fan that he is removing all his Patriots stuff from his kids room. Good move, lockout or no lockout! I kid, I kid...but I am going to rant some...after the jump...
I know how that fan feels. I want to do the same. If I didn't have a commitment to run this blog I would shut it down until these morons get their greediness back in the shadows. Having it out in the sunshine and on full display makes me ill.
So is there no irreparable harm being forced on anyone in this? Let's suppose the little guys like me who run blogs can get through this since most of us have day jobs anyway, but not all of us. I know a few who make their living exclusively from blogging about NFL football. Is there anyone else. I got a random email the other day where someone answered this question and asked that I make reference to it. I'll do that because I think he has a point:
From Charles Gallo (no link provided):
I think he makes a good point. If one of the UDFA's joined the Brady lawsuit that might be the point of view needed to lift the stay? So will any players out there listen?
But here's my question on that. Is that the quickest course of action that will get football started again? I'm not sure. I think its the owners who are most likely to drag this thing out as long as possible to get what they want. In their arrogance they are confident we will all coming running back to the NFL as soon as they get what they want. In some cases I bet that is true.
"It's unfortunate for the people who want the players on the field. But it seems that we have to wait a bit longer to get back to normal work," Baker said in a text message.
"In the meantime, the players will just continue to stay our course and prepare as well as we can for the time when we can go back to work, continue to be fiscally responsible and trust our leadership to continue to work toward the quickest resolution."
Fro me I'm long past picking sides in this fiasco. I just want a resolution because no matter what the final deal looks like both sides are going to be rich.
So don't expect any movement before June 3rd. It makes me wonder why they are even bothering to meet. So if the judge grants the owners appeal on June 3rd they will have all the power and the players will have to take what they can get. The only bargaining power they will have at that point is the fact the owners need a CBA to avoid losing the eventual anti-trust lawsuit that will work its way through the courts. If the players decide to not play ball after the owners lose the appeal then you can expect to lose at least part of the season and here's why.
Only with the approach of the season and loss of revenue might the owners be inclined to give up some ground. Otherwise they have no incentive. If there's no football at all there is no anti-trust.
Okay, I have stop now before my brain explodes. I was feeling better but now getting pissed again. We'll discuss some more on tonights radio show.