Gag order???

[DaBruinz]

So, today was the big day for both sides to present their cases... And the only thing we've heard out of Minnesota are the crickets chirping...

Did Judge Nelson issue a gag order to both sides????

 

[Ring 6]

So, today was the big day for both sides to present their cases... And the only thing we've heard out of Minnesota are the crickets chirping...

Did Judge Nelson issue a gag order to both sides????

I would imagine there isnt going to be much to report until there is a decision.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I would imagine there isnt going to be much to report until there is a decision.

I thought Tom Curran said the judge said she was taking the issues under advisement, he mentioned a couple weeks. Not sure if she said a couple weeks or Tom was speculating.

 

[Patspsycho]

NFL.com news: Judge says her ruling on lockout will take 'couple of weeks'

No gag order.

"Taking it under advisement" = you guys get back to the negotiating table and try one more time.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The only 'gagging' I see are the fans having to hold hope that these two sides find a way to make a deal.

Is Monty Hall available as mediator?

 

[supafly]

She also stated that the players 'seem to have a strong case.' Those words may be enough for the NFL to realize that they need to lower their expectations, and make friendly with the union*.

The initial hearing did not seem to go as well as the owners had hoped, and with her strongly encouraging the 2 sides to come to an agreement, and the draft (a very important time for the NFL to showcase) coming up, hopefully this can lead to some closer negotiations.

It's also possible that she may very well order the 2 sides to get back to the table. No matter what happens, there should be football in my opinion.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

She also stated that the players 'seem to have a strong case.' Those words may be enough for the NFL to realize that they need to lower their expectations, and make friendly with the union*.

The initial hearing did not seem to go as well as the owners had hoped, and with her strongly encouraging the 2 sides to come to an agreement, and the draft (a very important time for the NFL to showcase) coming up, hopefully this can lead to some closer negotiations.

It's also possible that she may very well order the 2 sides to get back to the table. No matter what happens, there should be football in my opinion.

Why would the owners make nice with the union? The longer this goes on, the ulterior motives become clearer. The PR battle being waged is being won by the owners. The legal battle has always been a coin flip, but the owners are probably being told that they will prevail on appeal. But one of the real goals is to get rid of Judge Doty, it is why the owners refuse to negotiate a settlement, and I can't blame them one bit. The shame of the matter is that the judge that is hearing the case is also a flaming liberal.

My worries about this is that the NFL becomes baseball and the owners lose control of the sport. I used to be a baseball fan until I kept hearing people who play a game and make millions for playing it b!tch and moan about their lot in life. Football is beginning to head down that path, and I would be in favor of the NFL tell the judge that they accept the fact that the union has desolved, that they will hold one last draft as is laid out in the last CBA, they will honor any existing contract and everybody else will become an independent contractor for the club. They will be paid on a 1099 every year and if they want to negotiate a new CBA, they can start from scratch. It would probably sacrifice a couple of drafts, but the owners will make out under such a deal, the players will get screwed because they will have to provide their own health insurance, go through workman's comp for injuries, plan their own retirement, go to jail for not paying their taxes.

I have a smile on my face just thinking about it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The only mediot who did the proceedings any justice was Greg Bedard of the Globe. Most everyone else is now either parroting or selectively spinning his comments. Having an opinion without actually hearing or seeing the proceedings is just more speculation.

He called the day pretty much by the time they took their first break - no ruling and a call for a return to mediation. Unfortunately she wasn't forceful enough in suggesting just how the two sides proceed. Kessler, whom the union* didn't even allow to open his mouth in court insists the only talks the association* is interested in are settlement talks. Boies, the lead council for the league, insists the only talks that can end the stalemate are collective bargaining talks. Says if the lawyers remain involved the talks will go nowhere simply by the nature of what that group will remain fixated on by nature. The league doesn't want another SSA attached to the CBA of 2011 that will inject another Minnesota judge into the process into infinity.

Bedard seemed to think her ruling will ultimately hinge on whether or not she decides that the NLRB has jurisdiction. That was what she and Bois spent most of the day focused on.

The simple fact that she didn't grant immediate injunctive relief has to be disappointing for the union because now between her taking a "couple weeks" to hand down any decision and an appeal of that decision to the 8th Circuit which would have to include a stay if she in fact grants an injunction, we're talking about the league remaining locked out at least through May. And it is also possible that she will order additional hearings on claims made in the filings that they didn't probe at length yesterday like irreperable damage.

So the bottom line is this is probably going to drag out at least another several weeks if not well into the summer. And sports mediots being the ADHD immediate gratification equivalents of their core demographic, this is all too slow and complicated for most of them to deal with so they are shutting down.

The really interesting part will be finding out what rules the league desides to operate under temporarily if in fact they are forced to unlock... Could be the 2010 rules complete with 6 year FA and 30% rules and multiple tags...or could be the last offer the league made in mediation including a rookie cap. Either route exposes them to anti trust penalty should the case ever get to trial, although the liklihood of that happening as opposed to what happened before (even after losing the White case there were no penalties because before any could be assessed the two sides entered into a settlement agreement that stipulated the union would recertify to facilitate a new CBA that precluded anti trust litigation) remains slim due to the potential for trials and appeals to drag the process out to the point the league has basically called the shots absent arbitration for 2-3 years. Going back a year or more that was what David Cornwell, the attorney/agent who staged an 11th hour attempt to oppose DeMaurice, predicted the outcome would be. With a settlement again being reached only as the court proceedings began to play out and the players became tired of watching the owners call the shots with no immediate recourse and bank increasing revenues while their individual careers in many cases were coming to an end.

The other interesting thing is the other pro sports leagues and their unions are all intently watching this unfold in anticipation of their own work stoppages. And if decertification turns out to be the trump card the NFLPA contends it is, you will see the NBA and MLB and even the NHL players associations decertify as a means to an end going forward.

The judge did comment yesterday on the irony of millionaire owners invoking protections that the Norris LaGuardia Act intended to benefit workers. Maybe she will yet see the irony of the NFLPA orchestrating it's own decertification for the second time when that option was intended to protect employees and their employers from unions that were not negotiating CBA's in good faith and had as a result lost the support of a majority of their members...

 

[ausbacker]

I'd like the whole thing resolved soon so I don't have to continually see DeMaurice Smith's repugnant way on the soap box.

 

[Patspsycho]

The only mediot who did the proceedings any justice was Greg Bedard of the Globe. Most everyone else is now either parroting or selectively spinning his comments. Having an opinion without actually hearing or seeing the proceedings is just more speculation.

He called the day pretty much by the time they took their first break - no ruling and a call for a return to mediation. Unfortunately she wasn't forceful enough in suggesting just how the two sides proceed. Kessler, whom the union* didn't even allow to open his mouth in court insists the only talks the association* is interested in are settlement talks. Boies, the lead council for the league, insists the only talks that can end the stalemate are collective bargaining talks. Says if the lawyers remain involved the talks will go nowhere simply by the nature of what that group will remain fixated on by nature. The league doesn't want another SSA attached to the CBA of 2011 that will inject another Minnesota judge into the process into infinity.

Bedard seemed to think her ruling will ultimately hinge on whether or not she decides that the NLRB has jurisdiction. That was what she and Bois spent most of the day focused on.

The simple fact that she didn't grant immediate injunctive relief has to be disappointing for the union because now between her taking a "couple weeks" to hand down any decision and an appeal of that decision to the 8th Circuit which would have to include a stay if she in fact grants an injunction, we're talking about the league remaining locked out at least through May. And it is also possible that she will order additional hearings on claims made in the filings that they didn't probe at length yesterday like irreperable damage.

So the bottom line is this is probably going to drag out at least another several weeks if not well into the summer. And sports mediots being the ADHD immediate gratification equivalents of their core demographic, this is all too slow and complicated for most of them to deal with so they are shutting down.

The really interesting part will be finding out what rules the league desides to operate under temporarily if in fact they are forced to unlock... Could be the 2010 rules complete with 6 year FA and 30% rules and multiple tags...or could be the last offer the league made in mediation including a rookie cap. Either route exposes them to anti trust penalty should the case ever get to trial, although the liklihood of that happening as opposed to what happened before (even after losing the White case there were no penalties because before any could be assessed the two sides entered into a settlement agreement that stipulated the union would recertify to facilitate a new CBA that precluded anti trust litigation) remains slim due to the potential for trials and appeals to drag the process out to the point the league has basically called the shots absent arbitration for 2-3 years. Going back a year or more that was what David Cornwell, the attorney/agent who staged an 11th hour attempt to oppose DeMaurice, predicted the outcome would be. With a settlement again being reached only as the court proceedings began to play out and the players became tired of watching the owners call the shots with no immediate recourse and bank increasing revenues while their individual careers in many cases were coming to an end.

The other interesting thing is the other pro sports leagues and their unions are all intently watching this unfold in anticipation of their own work stoppages. And if decertification turns out to be the trump card the NFLPA contends it is, you will see the NBA and MLB and even the NHL players associations decertify as a means to an end going forward.

The judge did comment yesterday on the irony of millionaire owners invoking protections that the Norris LaGuardia Act intended to benefit workers. Maybe she will yet see the irony of the NFLPA orchestrating it's own decertification for the second time when that option was intended to protect employees and their employers from unions that were not negotiating CBA's in good faith and had as a result lost the support of a majority of their members...

Florio of PFT is actually doing a great job breaking down the proceedings. He has a legal background, and has given a number of reading-between-the-lines observations that are astute and spot on.

Also since this is an argument for injunctive relief, there is no trial, only a hearing.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Florio of PFT is actually doing a great job breaking down the proceedings. He has a legal background, and has given a number of reading-between-the-lines observations that are astute and spot on.

Also since this is an argument for injunctive relief, there is no trial, only a hearing.

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]

Schefter ...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).

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

 

[supafly]

Why would the owners make nice with the union? The longer this goes on, the ulterior motives become clearer. The PR battle being waged is being won by the owners. The legal battle has always been a coin flip, but the owners are probably being told that they will prevail on appeal. But one of the real goals is to get rid of Judge Doty, it is why the owners refuse to negotiate a settlement, and I can't blame them one bit. The shame of the matter is that the judge that is hearing the case is also a flaming liberal.

My worries about this is that the NFL becomes baseball and the owners lose control of the sport. I used to be a baseball fan until I kept hearing people who play a game and make millions for playing it b!tch and moan about their lot in life. Football is beginning to head down that path, and I would be in favor of the NFL tell the judge that they accept the fact that the union has desolved, that they will hold one last draft as is laid out in the last CBA, they will honor any existing contract and everybody else will become an independent contractor for the club. They will be paid on a 1099 every year and if they want to negotiate a new CBA, they can start from scratch. It would probably sacrifice a couple of drafts, but the owners will make out under such a deal, the players will get screwed because they will have to provide their own health insurance, go through workman's comp for injuries, plan their own retirement, go to jail for not paying their taxes.

I have a smile on my face just thinking about it.

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

 

[Patspsycho]

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).

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]

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.

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.