Mickey Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Small businesses and a group of elected officials from various governmental entities from the US Congress to state legislatures filed an amicus brief in support of the injunction against the lockout which can be read here: Amicus Brief The brief is kind of interesting as it focuses on the impact to the public due to the loss of training camps and games. To support that argument, they put in a lot of stats and numbers about how much public money is at stake. A lot of local governments have financed the lion's share of the cost of building stadiums. They did so by borrowing the money and if no games are played, they are hit with a double whammy. They have to service the debt during the lockout and lose the tax revenue generated by the games. In the case of the Bills, Erie County has to pay the team 2.5 million for upkeep and maintenance even if games aren't played. The argument was stated nicely in this passage about the negative effects on the public of the lockout: "Those effects are easily identifiable and indisputable: Jobs will be lost, and government budgets will be left short. And worse still, all of this will occur after taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the very stadiums that the NFL intends to shutter for its own financial advantage." There is also a list of the elected officials who signed on to the brief including some State Senators from NY. This is the closest thing to the voice of the fans being heard in the current debate over the injunction though it will likely carry next to zero weight with the two Bush appointed judges that are running the show. Calm down guys, just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 The closest thing to a voice the fan has is to not visit their websites, buy their merchandise, go to their uniform unveilings or spend any money on NFL products. Small business going to court for damages probably has no grounds. They should be able to run their business independently of the NFL. If they can't then they need to evaluate their business. The public should have a right to sue but it was probably in the contracts local politicians agreed to with NFL teams stating that payments will be made regardless of events at the stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Don't get why this even went to court and has gotten this bad to begin with. Did the NFL learn nothing from the NHL? And the NFL is in a much better situation than the NHL was when it was locked out for a year. Its such a bad situation when lawyers are involved instead of the two parties hashing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Did the NFL learn nothing from the NHL? I suspect they learned plenty. The NFL hired a very experienced labor-relations law attorney, Bob Batterman, who says he represented the NHL during not one but TWO lockouts. They hired him in March, 2008, about 2 months before the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the CBA. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080310/This-Weeks-News/NFL-Brings-In-Veteran-Labor-Lawyer.aspx Batterman is apparently not the lead NFL negotiator, but he is advising the NFL. Here's an excerpt of what he said on or about 1/13/11 during an interview now posted on an NFL-related website: http://nfllabor.com/2011/01/13/transcript-of-bob-batterman-interview-with-ap/ "I had the experience with two NHL lockouts. Nobody else had that experience in professional sports. So I was in a natural place to be hired. If you are going to opt out of an agreement, if you are unhappy with the agreement, and you are seeking concessions, you have to be aware that you may be required to lock out to get the union to agree, in which case you want the best lawyer around to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 The closest thing to a voice the fan has is to not visit their websites, buy their merchandise, go to their uniform unveilings or spend any money on NFL products. Small business going to court for damages probably has no grounds. They should be able to run their business independently of the NFL. If they can't then they need to evaluate their business. The public should have a right to sue but it was probably in the contracts local politicians agreed to with NFL teams stating that payments will be made regardless of events at the stadiums. They have not gone to court for damages. The law provides people with an interest in the outcome of a suit the ability, under limited circumstances, to file a brief even though they are not a party to the lawsuit. It is called an amicus curiae brief which means "friend of the court". The small businesses and elected officials listed in the brief sought and obtained permission from the court to file an amicus brief. One of the factors the court is bound to consider in deciding this particular issue is the effect the injunction would have on the public. Neither side has, in my opinion, spent much time at all on that point. The two judges who ruled in favor of a continuing lockout dismissed the point by saying the effect on the public was a wash either way. This amicus brief is the only document I read that was submitted to the court that dealt with that point in any detail, showing that it wasn't a wash. I was also disappointed that the issue wasn't discussed much at all during oral argument. Simply boycotting the NFL is certainly another way to get their attention but right now there isn't much to boycott. And the NFL might interpret fan anger in that regard to be more against the players than the league though I don't know why that would matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Simply boycotting the NFL is certainly another way to get their attention but right now there isn't much to boycott. And the NFL might interpret fan anger in that regard to be more against the players than the league though I don't know why that would matter. Those who filed the brief haven't lost much yet either. It's still sringtime. I think a deal is pending in the next month--all this will look like the posturing that it is by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts