MoLewisrocks

I read Florio this AM. My only problem with his takes is his tendency to interject his personal pov into them. A trial will ensue once all the hearings and appeals on those are wrapped up - if the players prevail through the first couple of rounds (hearings and appeals of rulings emanating from those hearings). That could take months yet. Then the anti trust suit would commence although with discovery and pre trial motions and all that crap the lawyers get to bill for it could take a year or more for the case to actually go to trial.

I also just listened to a podcast of Schefter on with Mike and Mike this AM and he said that he thinks the league owners would be willing to talk to the players (as in the Vrabel plan as he calls it for players and owners absent lawyers to hammer something out) even under the auspices of Judge Nelson. But he doesn't believe the NFLPA lawyers would allow that. He did say that he clearly got the sense at the owners meetings last month that owners will go to the mat, including losing a season, in order to avoid operating under a SSA with continued judicial oversight again. And the union* seems hell bent on their being one per Kessler's comments yesterday. He's only interested in litigation settlement negotiations, not negotiating a CBA... Oddly, DeMaurice was said early on to be keeping Kessler at arms length because of his hard ass reputation and extreme views. He never spoke at the hearing yesterday, they had another counsel argue the case. And he was kept out of the NLRB mediation sessions down the stretch (after he and Kraft clashed). But behind the scenes he is still apparently weilding a lot of influence, and his long articulated goal is no union and no CBA (and total FA and no draft and no cap).

PatsWickedPissah

Let's see...whom to root for?
Bad news and badder news.

Owners prevail and we lose a season of Brady's shortening career as the owners break the union*

DeMaurice prevails and we have MLB redux, no cap, no draft, no CBA and league dominance by the richest, most ego driven to purchase Lombardis owners, as cities like Buffalo et. al. fold their teams and I predict Kraft sells.
Total suckage.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

TheComeback

From what I understand, the players feel like they have a strong legal case, which is why they brought this whole matter to court in the first place.

Seems like people have forgotten that this legal case is mostly about the players' claim that the NFL violated the previous CBA by trying to stockpile a "relief fund" for themselves in the event of a lockout. There's a lot of evidence showing the NFL did, in fact, plan for a lockout, so the players should feel confident in that regard as long they don't go bankrupt before a decision is made.

I think it's a stretch to call today a disappointment for the players, or anyone else for that matter, since I don't think anyone with knowledge of the situation expected anything to happen today.

Ultimately I could care less who "wins" this battle. I just want to watch football in the fall. One of these sides needs to give and start negotiating in an honest way. It's obvious both sides are more interested in getting even more money for themselves than ensuring the fans have NFL to watch this season.

townes

I love how people keep claiming the players want NO DRAFT AND NO CAP when there is absolutely zero evidence to support this claim, and in fact they argue simultaneously that the decertification is a "sham" and that they really are a union looking to deal.


Show the evidence the players want NO DRAFT AND NO CAP--I'd love to see it. They have never asked for either and in fact have repeatedly signed deals allowing for both, and were actually willing to reduce their take if the books warranted it.

PATRIOTSFANINPA

Some fans never get IT.

Football is as much of a business as any in here are connected to in their daily lives.

Football is so much more of a business than it is a game and yet people are only awakened to this fact when things like a lockout happen.

The owners could care less what the fans think and the players are the same kind of way....the Players may love the game but they are not doing it for free so its their 'Job',not a hobby.

If the owners really care about the fans then stop raising fees from concessions to parking to game seats.

If the players really care about the fans then stop griping about getting only $8M instead of $9M and bunghole athletes opening up their mouth and calling the players who are Millionaires as 'slaves'.

Some may think people like myself are 'downers' or look at sports in a negative light as its 'not just a game',but the truth is the game is fun to watch and great to be a fan but in perspective ITS BUSINESS and the only difference between the players on the field in uniform and a guy dressed in a suit in an office is that one wears a jock and one does not.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

supafly

Maybe 'owners making nice with the union' was poor wording on my part, yet my point remains the same--hopefully the effects from the Wed. hearing is that both sides can get back to the bargaining table, where they belong, and where Susan Nelson wants them. Not so sure what is so controversial, or hard to understand about that? She strongly encouraged them to return to talks, and that's all I was saying.

I do not think that all of a sudden, after weeks of no reports from either side wanting to talk, that suddenly they BOTH are issuing statements that they want to get back to the negotiations the very next day. That is in part, from the encouragement from Judge Nelson after Wed.'s hearing.

PatsWickedPissah

Those "we want to negotiate" statements are simply BS so that they don't PO the judge

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

Patspsycho

Florio may be an ass from time to time, but I actually think he has been an excellent commentator for this one particular issue.

Once again, there is no trial, only a injunction granted or denied (e.g., the lockout is declared illegal). There is only the US court of appeals for the losing party once the injunction is granted or denied, and this works far more in the NFL's favor than the players because of the conservative nature of the appeals judges who are republican-appointed (as opposed to Doty/Nelson). Read: anti-union.

I think the best outcome is that Nelson orders them into mediation today and avoids a judgement as much as she can because she knows the NFL will try to appeal it immediately, and just set back everything another 50-60 days.

MoLewisrocks

I don't know what part of the term trial you are grappling with. The hearing this week related to the request for an emergency injunction so players can get back to work absent a union or CBA and proceed with their anti trust suit. It was filed along with a lawsuit itself which remains to be dealt with whether there is an injunction or not. Under present circumstances, it won't be dismissed because it's a slam dunk (given the lack of a CBA). The only way it doesn't proceed is if it gets dropped (because the sides have settled their differences one way or another (settlement agreement or negotiated CBA) or if the NLRB or Judge Nelson rules the decertification itself is a sham. Otherwise irrespective of her decision on the lockout she will set a date for pre trial motions to be heard once she rules on the lockout.

As to whom an appeal favors, most legal experts have been saying it would be tough for either side to prevail on appeal. Yes, the political makeup of the 3 judge appeals court would appear to favor ownership on interpretation of the law, but appeals courts don't always look to re-hear these motions - rather they rule based on whether or not the judge granting them made some glaring factual or procedural error in reaching a decision.

Judge Nelson isn't going to order them into mediation. She had the opportunity to and she chose instead to merely suggest it. She may now choose to broker some sort of compromise regarding with whom and where they mediate, but she obviously isn't inclined to force either party to do something they aren't willing to do because the outcome would likely be a waste of time. Her goal is to get the two sides to agree to settle their differences so that the pending anti trust lawsuit itself can be dropped and she can get back to hearing more important cases that actually warrant court involvement.

Triumph

The two sides cannot even agree where to resume mediation.

The players want federal oversight and the owners are not going there. The court might force the owners to open up their books.

Its one big legal mess that I dont see ending anytime soon.