Now that the stay is denied... what's it mean?

[X-Era]

I think the NFL will have to apply rules and open for business.

I think the most likely rules will be last years rules.

So what does that mean? Whitner and Poz? Are they free agents or not? This seems to say they will be free agents:

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3/Bills-pending-free-agents-hopeful/f1e27888-19db-4988-8260-a5882cc58c70

If they put rules in place, what a mess this day will be:

1) Free agency starts on the same day as the draft... what a mess to try to do both at the same time... at least we know Nix will be up.

2) Trades of players can happen on draft day. Kolb could be in play.

3) Visits could happen during the next few days... So we could be have a presser for our new draftee followed by a presser for a new signee...

What else?

[Buddo]

Lots of things could happen, but my guess would be that the 'status quo' will alter very little.
Teams will probably be told to let the players use the facilities, and allow them to talk to coaches etc. I doubt that FA will be given the green light atm though. The reason for that is relatively straight forward, in that the NFL has to determine what rules will apply - and I doubt they will want to rush into that can of worms, especially when they are still trying to get a 'stay' of the ruling in the interim, from the appeal court.
Now, I may be wrong, but as far as I can work out, the ruling only really pertains to the actual 'lockout', so letting the players report and use facilities, and talk to coaches, should be 'good enough', from a compliance pov. Teams aren't actually obligated to do anything else tbh. As regards contracts etc., they don't have to engage in talks if they don't want to. Just because an agent/player might want to talk to them, doesn't mean to say they actually have the right to. 'Not today, thank you', is a sufficient response. Or maybe, 'Don't call us, we'll call you'.

[X-Era]

Lots of things could happen, but my guess would be that the 'status quo' will alter very little.
Teams will probably be told to let the players use the facilities, and allow them to talk to coaches etc. I doubt that FA will be given the green light atm though. The reason for that is relatively straight forward, in that the NFL has to determine what rules will apply - and I doubt they will want to rush into that can of worms, especially when they are still trying to get a 'stay' of the ruling in the interim, from the appeal court.
Now, I may be wrong, but as far as I can work out, the ruling only really pertains to the actual 'lockout', so letting the players report and use facilities, and talk to coaches, should be 'good enough', from a compliance pov. Teams aren't actually obligated to do anything else tbh. As regards contracts etc., they don't have to engage in talks if they don't want to. Just because an agent/player might want to talk to them, doesn't mean to say they actually have the right to. 'Not today, thank you', is a sufficient response. Or maybe, 'Don't call us, we'll call you'.Well, the problem may be that if they don't impose rules, some players have no contract... It expired on March 1st. Which means the NFL is preventing them from making money in their profession.

And, by not truly opening up for business, they risk contempt. The Judges ruling is telling them to begin business now which includes everything else.

Why should any player without a contract,not be allowed to go and get paid? They are willing to work, and there is no legal justification to deny them that.

As far as trades, you can't force teams to do that. But teams also can't collectively not trade... that's contempt and collusion. Kind of the same as that you can't force teams to sign players, but you also can't tell them they can't.

At a higher level, it's now 32 businesses and they can do whatever they want... just not collectively.

[Buddo]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/27/the-court-order-is-clear-the-nfl-should-be-conducting-business-as-usual/

This seems to imply that FA should start, although there also would seem to be no need for teams to do anything about it.
The fundamental problem with all of this, is that there are no specific rules in place, that actually say what should happen, when. It's all very well to say that FA should begin, but who is actually a FA? The league could impose rules that stop some guys becoming FAs this year (e.g. Whitner and Poz).

[Buddo]

Well, the problem may be that if they don't impose rules, some players have no contract... It expired on March 1st. Which means the NFL is preventing them from making money in their profession.

And, by not truly opening up for business, they risk contempt. The Judges ruling is telling them to begin business now which includes everything else.

Why should any player without a contract,not be allowed to go and get paid? They are willing to work, and there is no legal justification to deny them that.

As far as trades, you can't force teams to do that. But teams also can't collectively not trade... that's contempt and collusion. Kind of the same as that you can't force teams to sign players, but you also can't tell them they can't.

At a higher level, it's now 32 businesses and they can do whatever they want... just not collectively.

I don't believe that 'contempt and collusion' actually would be the case, should teams decide not to trade. The article I referenced in my post above, is saying that the lockout has to stop, and it should be 'business as usual'. The problem with that, is that there is no 'business as usual', because the NFL hasn't come up with any 'rules' under which the forthcoming season is to be 'played'. It also seems that the ruling hasn't said that the NFL has to do other than end the lockout, and allow FA. After that, it seems to me, that all bets are off.
I think the NFL could tell teams that they can trade and sign players, as of today, but under whatever conditions they choose to impose - I don't think the judges ruling actually stops that, at all. The NFL could turn round and say that FA exists for all players who have 7 years service, and are out of contract. Up until then, they are RFAs. You see the dilemma?
I don't believe the ruling against the lockout, does anything, or implies anything much, as to what rules the NFL should be adopting.

[TacklingDummy]

It means the NFL can make it own rules to run their business and if the players don't like it they can strike or go find real jobs.

[X-Era]

I don't believe that 'contempt and collusion' actually would be the case, should teams decide not to trade. The article I referenced in my post above, is saying that the lockout has to stop, and it should be 'business as usual'. The problem with that, is that there is no 'business as usual', because the NFL hasn't come up with any 'rules' under which the forthcoming season is to be 'played'. It also seems that the ruling hasn't said that the NFL has to do other than end the lockout, and allow FA. After that, it seems to me, that all bets are off.
I think the NFL could tell teams that they can trade and sign players, as of today, but under whatever conditions they choose to impose - I don't think the judges ruling actually stops that, at all. The NFL could turn round and say that FA exists for all players who have 7 years service, and are out of contract. Up until then, they are RFAs. You see the dilemma?
I don't believe the ruling against the lockout, does anything, or implies anything much, as to what rules the NFL should be adopting.

The teams must provide a work place, and pay, but they don't have to hire anyone new or pay anyone not under contract to be paid.

Really, as a business, they can choose when to hire someone or if they do at all.

The problem is that teams that need help will want to get a jump on that... So it's really a game of who moves first... which team goes after the first free agent or tries to sign one... Once that first move is made, the businesses (teams) will immediately start to compete.

If they all collectively agree not to, it's potentially collusion. Thats 32 seperate businesses agreeing not to hire anyone. Which then leaves willing workers unable to get a job by collective design. I think there is a collusion case there. And, since signing free agents is part of normal business, preventing it is potentially contempt of court.

[X-Era]

Rotoworld is saying that if 2010 rules are applied, 4 and 5 year players are restricted... that means both Poz and Whitner are still Bills.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/591/drew-brees

Is that right can someone help on that?

[psubills62]

Rotoworld is saying that if 2010 rules are applied, 4 and 5 year players are restricted... that means both Poz and Whitner are still Bills.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/591/drew-brees

Is that right can someone help on that?
That would be correct. They'd still be Buffalo Bills if the 2010 FA rules are applied. And it would dilute the FA market yet again...but leaving the door wide open for 2012 free agency to explode.

[Buddo]

The teams must provide a work place, and pay, but they don't have to hire anyone new or pay anyone not under contract to be paid.

Really, as a business, they can choose when to hire someone or if they do at all.

The problem is that teams that need help will want to get a jump on that... So it's really a game of who moves first... which team goes after the first free agent or tries to sign one... Once that first move is made, the businesses (teams) will immediately start to compete.

If they all collectively agree not to, it's potentially collusion. Thats 32 seperate businesses agreeing not to hire anyone. Which then leaves willing workers unable to get a job by collective design. I think there is a collusion case there. And, since signing free agents is part of normal business, preventing it is potentially contempt of court.

'Business as usual' actually is something of a get out clause for the NFL, as atm, with no rules set, there is no 'business as usual' What they have done, is told the teams (as I suggested they would earlier), that players should have full use of facilities, they can talk to coaches and playbooks can be exchanged etc.
I don't believe that there would be necessarily a problem with teams signing their own FAs, but I don't see that they actually can sign other teams FAs without the surety of knowledge of the rules that apply. The Packers, as an oddball case, probably couldn't even try something like that, (as a public company) due to there not being any set rules as yet.
I think you're jumping the gun with the whole 'collusion' thing. Even the players, atm, realise that rules need to be put in place. There is also too much going on atm, with the draft, legal appeals etc., for teams to genuinely feel comfortable about even beginning negotiations. Common sense, as opposed to collusion.

[Buddo]

That would be correct. They'd still be Buffalo Bills if the 2010 FA rules are applied. And it would dilute the FA market yet again...but leaving the door wide open for 2012 free agency to explode.

This is true. Poz and I believe also Whitner, ( although I'm not 100% certain with him ) were given RFA tenders, before whatever cut off day there was, for these things to happen by. Basically the FO covering their options, if it was going to be the 2010 rules that are 'imposed'. The same thing happened around the league tbh. A lot of players signed Franchise Tags too, although again, there's uncertainty as to whether or not they will exist.