AFL-CIO files amicus brief in support of Tom Brady

n6249c said:

Talk about tidbits worthy of getting hard over, I loved the citation in Feinberg's example. Whose precedent did the Appellate panel ignore? WOW!

Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

I don't know about Hill's "one or two years" statement. Wallach was saying the other day on Twitter that even if en banc review is granted, it's not crazy for it to be reheard and decided by September.

If there's a big delay in ultimate resolution of the case, I think that a big delay will only happen if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.

If the en banc review happens and a decision issues by September, say, ..

TL;DR: If SCOTUS won't take the case it'll likely be all over by November at the latest. If they do take it, then tack on another 5-6 months at a minimum.

Click to expand...

Gumby said:

al.



Well, he (Wallach) was prescient about the AFL bit, i just hope the 13 panel judges dont give so much credence to this one argument (below). It is about the only one the nyjfl has made that seems to have any logic/justification to it (but even that doesnt justify gotohell's ridiculous overstepping of a disasterously open-ended authority).

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

If you think that then there is no point in discussing anything because arbitration has been the preferred way to handle things for the past 4 decades and for MLB, NBA and NHL. And it has nothing to do with the "Right of Sports leagues".

Even Pro Business lobbying groups won't touch this because they know that there is already legal precedent that over-rides it. As pointed out in 2 of the Amicus Briefs. If they were to do so, they'd likely lose ground on it. Not gain..

Click to expand...

Hammer of Thor said:

I wasn't really serious with that post, as I was hoping the Munson and Bill Nye inclusions would indicate.

That said, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the other sports leagues file something in support (although as noted earlier it's probably best for them not to). "The rights of sports leagues" was a bad phrase on my part, I was trying to get at the "right of collectively bargained employers". The argument wouldn't be focused on arbitration itself - it would be focused on what Daniel Wallach said in his quote that was posted earlier.

"As sports leagues who use CBAs with their players, we expect and require that the rights and power we bargain for are held true. Our sports leagues don't have an Article 46 because we negotiated it away in exchange for something else. Overturning this decision will erase a right that the employer negotiated over the bargaining table, and set a bad precedent that all rights negotiated in good faith could be arbitrarily erased by the Court system."

Not saying I believe the BS above not that I think it's likely they would do it. But if they were to, I think that would be the avenue they'd take - ignoring the arbitration argument and focusing on the CBA argument, just like the NFL did.

Click to expand...

cscirpoli said:

They wouldn't be getting rid of a bargained right in the CBA. The commissioner still ignored procedural rules of fundamental fairness and discovery and increased penalty which was beyond his scope as arbitrator. He could still impose the 4 game suspension for nothing and have it stand in the original court if he did it half way intelligently...

Click to expand...

Hammer of Thor said:

I don't disagree with you, but it's the spin they would take. Read Berman's decision and then read the NFL's appeal. Berman's decision said some of what you said (and didn't rule on other parts). The NFL responded saying Article 46 gave them the rights to do all that stuff, that he wasn't biased because both parties agreed to Goodell as the arbitrator, and that all of those issues above were the arbitrator's judgement and not things that could be questioned. That argument worked with 2 of the CA2 judges.

Click to expand...

Hammer of Thor said:

I don't disagree with you, but it's the spin they would take. Read Berman's decision and then read the NFL's appeal. Berman's decision said some of what you said (and didn't rule on other parts). The NFL responded saying Article 46 gave them the rights to do all that stuff, that he wasn't biased because both parties agreed to Goodell as the arbitrator, and that all of those issues above were the arbitrator's judgement and not things that could be questioned. That argument worked with 2 of the CA2 judges.

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

Rich Hill had an as-usual excellent article on that very question this morning.

DeflateGate: Player unions from MLB, NBA, and NHL decline to support NFLPA and Patriots QB Tom Brady

Click to expand...

TheBostonStraggler said:

Ya but what if Goodell personally paid for every game attendee's beer along with 3 months of free cable....maybe even throws in a free extra trip to the salad bar of your choice?

Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

I don't know about Hill's "one or two years" statement. Wallach was saying the other day on Twitter that even if en banc review is granted, it's not crazy for it to be reheard and decided by September.

If there's a big delay in ultimate resolution of the case, I think that a big delay will only happen if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.

If the en banc review happens and a decision issues by September, say, and the loser asks SCOTUS to hear the case, SCOTUS would probably make its decision whether or not to hear the case by November (I'm basing that on a SCOTUS media guide that says they average taking 6 weeks to make the hear/not hear decision). If SCOTUS denies, that's the end of the line. So it could be all over by this November.

(Actually, if CA2 denies en banc and SCOTUS denies certioarari, it could all be over by the first Monday this October (SCOTUS doesn't act on post-June petitions except in emergencies (think death penalty stuff)) but lets them pile up over the summer and releases lots of the hear/no hear decisions on the first day of the new term.)

If SCOTUS does decide to hear it, then it depends on when SCOTUS makes the hear/no hear decision.

Now, if they do decide to hear it then Brady will almost certainly play the 2016-17 season w/o a suspension because there's no way they hear and decide it before the beginning of February given the assumed timeline. If they decide before the 3rd week of January to hear it, it will likely be heard in the 2016-17 SCOTUS term (Oct-June) and decided by the end of June 2017. If they decide after the 3rd week of January to year it, then according to the SCOTUS media guide it won't be heard until the 2017-18 term. But since it would be one of the first cases added for that term, it would probably be argued in Oct or Nov 2017 and perhaps decided before the end of 2017.

Putting that all together, I'd guess the possible timing outcomes are:
* All over by this Oct/Nov (ultimate loser before CA2 petition SCOTUS, SCOTUS denies)
* All over by Spring 2017 (ultimate loser before CA2 petitions SCOTUS, SCOTUS accepts in a typical timeframe)
* All over by Dec 2017/Jan 2018 (ultimate loser before CA2 petitions SCOTUS, SCOTUS accepts in an abnormally long timeframe).

Actually, I suppose I'm too hasty with "all over", now that I think about it.

First, if en banc review is granted it is entirely possible that the en banc court decides to only throw out what Berman decided but remands to him to decide the other things. The NFL could ask SCOTUS to hear that. Say SCOTUS denies it in October. So now it's in front of Berman. Then when he's done with that go-round, the losing side could appeal that to CA2 and then the loser there could try for en banc and then petition SCOTUS.

Or here's one (highly unlikely!) that could take even longer. En banc vacates Berman but remands for consideration on other things. NFL petitions SCOTUS to hear that appeal. SCOTUS a very long time to decide but ultimately agrees to take the case and in Dec 2017 upholds CA2. So now it goes to Berman. Then the loser there appeals to CA2. That could take you all the way to the end of 2018.

TL;DR: If SCOTUS won't take the case it'll likely be all over by November at the latest. If they do take it, then tack on another 5-6 months at a minimum.

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

@JJC - Could you explain why you disagree with @ausbacker ?

Click to expand...