Gag order???

[supafly]

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

I respectfully disagree, PWP.

I think sooner or later, within the next couple of weeks, they are going to have to start negotiating again. Especially considering the players want their free agency ASAP, and the owners don't want to have a ruling against them--that won't sit well with them being forced back under last yr's rules.

Since Wednesday, when she made the comment, there has been more contact than in the past month, and it continues to grow. As of today, they are in the process of planning talks again right now. There has been at least some give and take in the past couple of days. Although not as substantial as we'd like, it's better than it was in the past month. A new CBA isn't going to get done unless they sit down and talk, so they're eventually going to have to do that, no?

League, players to talk mediation with Judge Nelson today | ProFootballTalk

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I respectfully disagree, PWP.

I think sooner or later, within the next couple of weeks, they are going to have to start negotiating again. Especially considering the players want their free agency ASAP, and the owners don't want to have a ruling against them--that won't sit well with them being forced back under last yr's rules.

Since Wednesday, when she made the comment, there has been more contact than in the past month, and it continues to grow. As of today, they are in the process of planning talks again right now. There has been at least some give and take in the past couple of days. Although not as substantial as we'd like, it's better than it was in the past month. A new CBA isn't going to get done unless they sit down and talk, so they're eventually going to have to do that, no?

League, players to talk mediation with Judge Nelson today | ProFootballTalk

They finished talking for an hour almost an hour and a half ago. And as far as what they discussed, today she did put a gag order on the substance of that...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I respectfully disagree, PWP.

I think sooner or later, within the next couple of weeks, they are going to have to start negotiating again. Especially considering the players want their free agency ASAP, and the owners don't want to have a ruling against them--that won't sit well with them being forced back under last yr's rules.

Since Wednesday, when she made the comment, there has been more contact than in the past month, and it continues to grow. As of today, they are in the process of planning talks again right now. There has been at least some give and take in the past couple of days. Although not as substantial as we'd like, it's better than it was in the past month. A new CBA isn't going to get done unless they sit down and talk, so they're eventually going to have to do that, no?

League, players to talk mediation with Judge Nelson today | ProFootballTalk

Excellent! I hope to be way wrong here!

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

Do you have any idea what an independent contractor is? The job description of an NFL player violates just about every single determining factor in what constitutes an employee vs. a contractor, and violation of any single one of them, in most states, is enough to have you deemed an employee. That has to be one of the more ridiculously ill-informed things that I've ever read on this site, and that's really saying something.

Even if the owners somehow were able to force the players to all sign 1099s, that would hold up for about 3 seconds when legally challenged.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Do you have any idea what an independent contractor is? The job description of an NFL player violates just about every single determining factor in what constitutes an employee vs. a contractor, and violation of any single one of them, in most states, is enough to have you deemed an employee. That has to be one of the more ridiculously ill-informed things that I've ever read on this site, and that's really saying something.

Even if the owners somehow were able to force the players to all sign 1099s, that would hold up for about 3 seconds when legally challenged.

I'll take your word for it. But still, it will be fun watching the increase of morons getting busted this spring because they don't have the NFL baby sitting service to pick them up, pay their fines, cover up for them. Still, the idea that these guys would have to pay for their own insurance and pay their own taxes would be humorous.

I know some of these guys, they are really good guys who like to party. Some are really bright, some are rocks and trees and just exist. I have little or no sympathy.

 

[Patspsycho]

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.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, you are looking at the big picture, not just the injunction.

I think that the fact that Nelson didn't immediately order them into mediation or make a ruling right on the spot is a very smart move. It doesn't give the NFL or the players an excuse to point fingers, or claim circumstances beyond their control in defense of why they can't get anything done.

The onus is still on them.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Clearly you haven't read anything about Jeff Kessler. He has said, repeatedly, that his goal is to eliminate the cap and the draft because he feels it's unfair to the players.

 

[patfanken]

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.

Amen brother I was just thinking the same thing.......and that's coming from a "flaming liberal"

 

[townes]

Clearly you haven't read anything about Jeff Kessler. He has said, repeatedly, that his goal is to eliminate the cap and the draft because he feels it's unfair to the players.

Jeff Kessler doesn't negotiate for the players. At no time has the union or players association ever asked for either of these things, and the reports from mediation were that they agreed to a rookie cap.

So, which is it, is the decertification a sham and they are simply posturing or do the players want no union and an unfettered free market?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So, which is it, is the decertification a sham and they are simply posturing or do the players want no union and an unfettered free market?

You can't have it both ways.

Yes we can!

Yes we can!!!

Decertification could well be a sham tactic to achieve whatever end means via a perceived sympathetic judicial system. Said tactics and goals are not mutually exclusive nor necessarily disjoint. Think beyond the apparent 1st, 2nd and 3rd moves grasshopper.

 

[townes]

Yes we can!

Yes we can!!!

Decertification could well be a sham tactic to achieve whatever end means via a perceived sympathetic judicial system. Said tactics and goals are not mutually exclusive nor necessarily disjoint. Think beyond the apparent 1st, 2nd and 3rd moves grasshopper.

Actually you are just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. The two goals are mutually exclusive, if there is no CBA/Union then they can have an unfettered free market, something many of those who support the owners actually claim as a principle, and if they have an agreement under CBA then there will be condition s that allow the owners to abridge some of the freedoms the players would have under an unfettered free market system.


Funny how you guys supposedly support a "free market" unless those in it are athletes, then they have to be reigned in.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Actually you are just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. The two goals are mutually exclusive, if there is no CBA/Union then they can have an unfettered free market, something many of those who support the owners actually claim as a principle, and if they have an agreement under CBA then there will be condition s that allow the owners to abridge some of the freedoms the players would have under an unfettered free market system.

You need to drop the ideology, read what's posted and think, however difficult that may be grasshopper.

The tactic of decertification kicks the issue back into the courts. The union* likely believes that it will win in court. What winning (the goal, the ends) means is to be seen. So we disregard the previously stated positions of influential union* protagonists? If the union* wins in court it does NOT have to re-certify and form a CBA as you so wrongly imply. Think!

 

[townes]

You need to drop the ideology, read what's posted and think, however difficult that may be grasshopper.

The tactic of decertification kicks the issue back into the courts. The union* likely believes that it will win in court. What winning (the goal, the ends) means is to be seen. So we disregard the previously stated positions of influential union* protagonists? If the union* wins in court it does NOT have to re-certify and form a CBA as you so wrongly imply. Think!

No kidding?


Once again, you don't get it. You can say the decertification is a "sham" or you can say they want an unfettered free market, not both. Let us know when you can figure that out.

 

[Ring 6]

No kidding?


Once again, you don't get it. You can say the decertification is a "sham" or you can say they want an unfettered free market, not both. Let us know when you can figure that out.

I think that the 'sham' argument goes something like this.
-As a union they collectively bargained issues such as a salary cap and draft that are Anti-trust violations absent a CBA.
-By decertifying they can sue on those Anti-Trust violations.
-Should they win they could have the choice of free player movement, no draft etc, or to 'offer' to reform a union to save the NFL from such a system
-The players understand that a collectively bargainned scenario with a draft and controlled player movement is really the only way the league can work
-Therefore the 'sham' lies in the idea that decertification was not a decision with any permanance but one that allowed them to act as if they were not collective, in order to gain a bargaining advantage as a union.

In other words the 'sham' is that the manuever to be able to sue for 'an unfettered free market' but if the won, they would simply use that as a chip to collectively bargain.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Amen brother I was just thinking the same thing.......and that's coming from a "flaming liberal"

I could have done without knowing about your "flaming."

 

[townes]

I think that the 'sham' argument goes something like this.
-As a union they collectively bargained issues such as a salary cap and draft that are Anti-trust violations absent a CBA.
-By decertifying they can sue on those Anti-Trust violations.

No disagreement here, the owners need player agreement to violate anti-trust statutes, that is actually what makes them "partners."

 

[townes]

-Should they win they could have the choice of free player movement, no draft etc, or to 'offer' to reform a union to save the NFL from such a system

Once again, no argument here, the player's will have the choice between a free market system or negotiating a deal with owners that abridges some freedoms in return for a good deal that benefits all.

 

[townes]

-The players understand that a collectively bargainned scenario with a draft and controlled player movement is really the only way the league can work

Disagree on this. I agree that the current systems are probably in the best interest of the league as a whole but I don't see how anyone can say that this is the "only" way the league can operate. If the owners offer a fair deal then i would expect the players to agree to it as they always have, if the owners insist on crushing the players and dictating the terms of the deal, as some here are openly rooting for, then I think the player's should tell them to go pound sand and opt for a free market. This is why the decertification is not a "sham" as the players will have options should they win the case, however if they lose it then they are essentially screwed, however they shouldn't as even those who side with the owners realize the players rights are abridged without a CBA.

 

[townes]

-Therefore the 'sham' lies in the idea that decertification was not a decision with any permanance but one that allowed them to act as if they were not collective, in order to gain a bargaining advantage as a union.

In other words the 'sham' is that the manuever to be able to sue for 'an unfettered free market' but if the won, they would simply use that as a chip to collectively bargain.

I don't agree that it is a "sham" because the player's sacrificed their right to strike by renouncing their union and the players are also at risk to lose the suit, even though they are clearly in the right. If they win they will have choices and leverage in making a deal that benefits all or simply going for a free market, so the decertification is very real as it brings high risk and sacrifices union options.

Hopefully they get a deal done in arbitration/mediation, both sides need to be reasonable.

 

[townes]

In other words the 'sham' is that the manuever to be able to sue for 'an unfettered free market' but if the won, they would simply use that as a chip to collectively bargain.

i.e... you believe it is a "sham" and therefore realize that those trying to say their goal is an unfettered free market are wrong.