Friday's labor fight: What to expect in 8th Circuit courtroom

ST. LOUIS -- NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said last week that he worried, without negotiation with the players, one court date would just lead to another. The parties restarted mediated talks this week, but Friday's hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a critical one because of timing.

Ultimately, the 8th Circuit's ruling will be needed to send talks to the next level, and no matter the result, the losing party's next step would be to push the labor dispute to the point where the 2011 NFL season could be in real peril. As much as the league-imposed lockout and union decertification have been painted as "nuclear options," staying in court past the appeals court's ruling (and the pending TV rights fee ruling from U.S. District Judge David Doty) really would be one.

We enlisted NFL Network legal expert Gabe Feldman, director of Tulane University's Sports Law Program, to help guide us through what to look for in the courtroom.

The NFL has, in effect, turned this 1932 law on its head, taking a statute intended to defend workers and using it to protect an employer, in interpreting that the act says an injunction lifting a lockout can't be granted in a situation "growing out of a labor dispute."

U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson disagreed with the NFL's interpretation. The 8th Circuit, in its stay ruling, sided with the league. So the players will have to get one of the two George W. Bush-appointed judges (the Clinton appointee, Kermit Bye, already dissented) to change his mind and uphold Nelson's ruling to end the lockout.

Feldman's take: "The first thing we have to see is if the panel is going to, as expected, follow the reasoning they laid out in the stay opinion and deny the injunction. You're looking to see if anything that (players attorney Theodore) Olson says may change one of those two judges' minds. The expectation is the court will extend the stay to deny the injunction, so you're looking for clues that someone's mind has changed. ... It's a purely legal issue. It's just the interpretation of a federal statute and how it applies to these circumstances. The world hasn't changed, so the only thing that can change is a judge's interpretation of the statute. That'd be uncommon and is unlikely. An extreme long shot."

The 8th Circuit judges didn't tip their hands on the other two foundation pieces of the NFL's case -- the non-statutory labor exemption and primary jurisdiction -- in the stay ruling. The former moves for dismissal of the larger Brady et al antitrust lawsuit. The latter asserts that the National Labor Relations Board must rule on the NFL Players Association's March 11 decertification first, and a favorable ruling for the league there also would end the antitrust suit.

The players likely will try to focus on Norris-LaGuardia. Chances are, the NFL will focus on the non-statutory labor exemption and primary jurisdiction to try to shoot down the antitrust case. If the 8th Circuit again leaves these issues alone, it could level the playing field for the players in the face of a potentially negative ruling on Norris-LaGuardia.

Feldman's take: "The panel didn't mention these things at all in the stay ruling, so we really have no idea how the panel will rule on them in the appeal, if they rule at all. We may get a similar ruling -- only addressing Norris-LaGuardia, and nothing else. Or the panel could go further and put language in the opinion saying the non-statutory exemption applies, or that the decertification is a sham, or that these issues have to be assessed by the NLRB. Any of these outcomes would mean the players' antitrust case couldn't go forward, which would be crippling for the players. It eliminates all their leverage."

Each side is permitted 30 minutes to argue -- and that's including rebuttals. So time will be at a premium.

The good news is that each party's position is clearly stated, as is the position of the judges, so it should lead to an efficient hearing that dives right into the issues.

Feldman's take: "This is a little unique, given that the panel has already ruled on the Norris-LaGuardia issue. I think the argument will be quickly focused, and not much time will be spent on background. They'll get right to the issues. The players have an uphill climb. It's not unlike being down 30 at the half and needing a remarkable comeback to have a chance. The players realize they have to convince one of the two judges to change his mind. What I'm looking for is whether Olson is able to make progress in convincing the judges on Norris-LaGuardia, and how much time the judges spend on the other legal issues."

On April 6, Nelson spent time telegraphing her decision, in what could be construed as an effort to show where leverage would go and persuade the sides not to waste time waiting for a ruling. The 8th Circuit judges could do the same, particularly with time growing shorter before regular-season games are put in jeopardy.

Will the three-judge panel show its hand? It could be what's best for both parties. Really, this hearing is about the aforementioned leverage points, and the fact they aren't yet defined is what's holding back talks. It'll be interesting to see if this notoriously business-minded court tries to help in that regard.

Feldman's take: "I think it's possible that they do that, but they also could do that by issuing a quick ruling and opinion, so it will be key to see if they give any indication as to when they will rule. But we'll probably not get the finality that the parties want until we get the opinion, which will define where the leverage points are. And I don't think negotiations will kick start until we get that opinion. Since it's a panel of three judges, they're going to want to discuss the ruling amongst themselves, and that complicates it a bit."

View the original article here

Report: Bills eye fight between Hangartner, Wood at center

Geoff Hangartner has started 28 games in the middle of Buffalo's offensive line over the past two seasons, but the veteran center now finds himself in a battle to keep his starting role at that spot with the emergence of Eric Wood.

Veteran Geoff Hangartner might face stiff competition from Eric Wood for the Bills' starting center spot. (Paul Abell/Associated Press)

When Hangartner went down with a sprained knee late last season, two-year veteran Eric Wood shifted over from his right-guard spot to start the final four games at center -- and turned heads within the organization.

"We think Eric Wood was the best center in the draft coming out," Bills general manager Buddy Nix told The Buffalo News at the Senior Bowl in January. "Obviously he wasn't (fully) healthy. But when he gets healthy, there's a good chance that's where he'll be. We'll just see. We'll play the best ones."

The Bills are enamored with the physicality of Wood, who fought his way back in 2010 from a severe leg fracture. They also treasure Hangartner's intelligent play -- he scored 47 out of 50 on the Wonderlic before the 2005 NFL Draft -- and he has brought consistency to a position long in flux for Buffalo.

Hangartner, who has appeared in 83 games for the Carolina Panthers and Bills in six seasons, plans to continue as the Bills' starter.

"That's my mind-set, yes," Hangartner told The News this week at the team's player-only workout in Elma, N.Y. "I haven't spoken with anybody about it. But that is my mind-set.

"I talked to (offensive line coach Joe D'Alessandris) for a little bit. And (switching positions) never come up in our conversations. There's always speculation on this and that in the offseason. So we'll see how it shakes out."

Bills' Jackson nearly takes tumble Everyone's worst nightmare nearly happened at the Bills' player-run workouts Tuesday, as Fred Jackson managed to prevent a nasty spill, Vic Carucci writes. More ...

» Photos: Player-run workouts

It's a nice problem to have for coach Chan Gailey, who relishes competition along the offensive line, knowing both will find a way into the lineup if they continue their solid play.

Hangartner this week also addressed the subject of players encountering serious financial problems during the NFL lockout, saying it was hardly indicative of a league-wide epidemic.

"I think you're just hearing more about the problem that guys have dealing with money in this league," Hangartner said Tuesday. "I don't think it's just a problem with the lockout. It's an underlying problem, regardless. I don't think a whole lot of guys have missed money at this point."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Rodgers' Super Bowl: Disney ad, Aguilera's flub, pregame fight

It was the biggest victory in Aaron Rodgers' career, but when he was ready to celebrate with teammates after the Green Bay Packers toppled the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV, there was more work to do.

Can you say, "I'm going to Disneyland!"?

Rodgers could, but the postgame taping of the traditional Disney television advertisement after February's 31-25 victory in Arlington, Texas, wasn't so simple.

The Packers quarterback, who was the game's MVP after throwing for 304 yards and three touchdowns, told ESPN Radio in Milwaukee that he was ready for the task. It just didn't go as he expected it would.

"I swear I said those words probably 12 times, no joke. I mean, you exaggerate and say 20 times, but it felt like 20 times," Rodgers said. "It was probably 12 times where I said, 'I'm going to Disneyland!' Because they kept coming up to me and saying, 'Oh, we didn’t get good audio there.' 'Oh, we need more energy.' ...

"The whole time, I'm thinking to myself -- and Disney people are great -- but I'm thinking to myself, 'I want to celebrate with my teammates.' Every five minutes, you see a huge guy. There's three guys. One huge guy. One guy with a camera and one guy with a sign, like, here's your line ... like I don't know what the lines are? Come on now.

"Every time I saw the real tall guys, I'm like, 'Oh, crap, I gotta say it again.' Finally, seriously, after about the eighth or ninth time, I go, 'Are you telling me you haven't gotten a good line yet?' They go, 'No. No. There's audio interference and whatnot.' "

Rodgers hid from the cameras earlier, during pregame -- "I don't like having that camera right in front of my face," he said -- and got to witness from up close the most talked-about moment of the afternoon, Christina Aguilera's national-anthem flub.

"First of all, the chick from 'Glee' (Lea Michele) killed the first song ('America the Beautiful'). She should have sang the anthem, too ...," Rodgers said. "I don't know who I was standing next to, but (Aguilera) starts singing it, and in most of the stadiums they have the words up on the board, kind of up-and-above the singer, so she can tell that she screwed up.

"She screwed up, and I knew it, and something was off. I'm looking around, going, 'Does anyone else realize this?' I don't think they had, (and) I kind of tapped ... I think it was Diyral Briggs next to me, and said, 'Hey, did you hear that?’'He was like, 'What?' I’m like, 'She just totally screwed it up.' ... I feel kind of bad for her, but at the same time, come on now?"

And then it's time to focus on the game, right? Think again.

"I have one (story) better than that one," Rodgers said. "We walked out for the coin toss, and at the Super Bowl, there are these long TV timeouts, so we go out for the coin toss. I'm one of the captains. There's five of us. The Steelers' guys are standing over there, and we're standing looking at each other for a good three minutes.

"Well, over to the left, about 10 cameramen have been trying to get in place for the best shot, and two of them are fighting. They're yelling at each other in different languages, flipping each other off, and one guy is flipping him off, and the other guy below him is just taking all of these pictures of him. ... They're both screaming at other and taking pictures of each other for a good minute and a half, and I'm tapping A.J. (Hawk), like, look at that over there! Look at those guys! It was unbelievable."

Rodgers says he hasn't watched a replay of the game -- he saw a little of the Packers' championship DVD at his parents' house -- but he's looking forward to receiving his Super Bowl ring. Will he tuck it away to keep it safe?

"Nah, I'll wear it," he said. "Not often, but I will wear it."

View the original article here