Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Deus Irae, Apr 25, 2011.
which means this is not getting settled till july because it will be tied up in 8th district ct...
I should say july at the earliest.... yes the players won, which we all knew.. but the owners will fight this thing until the end.. so if people think fa can begin next week and trade picks for players not going to happen just yet...
What I dont get - and I'm not taking sides here, I feel both sides are culpable in this mess they're all in - is why the players union de-certifying isn't seen as a sham? They've done it before, and they'll reform as soon as this is all over with?
So the left leaning judge ruled in favor of the players and the right leaning appeals court will likely rule in favor of the owners. BTW, I would bet the appeals court will grant the stay for the owners.
The dispute and CBA disaster has not changed today.
There is still a LONG battle to be fought before Football in 2011 is a reality...right now todays ruling is not exactly a bright sign of change.
Judge rules for NFL players, lifts owners' lockout - ESPN Boston
This is still going to be dragged out through the court system over the next few months. It's far from over. I like the ruling, though. With that said, wake me up when this is all over.
Tactic and sham are not synonymous.
doesnt answer the question. One could restate is as
"why isn't this tactic by the players (de-certification) seen as a sham, given that it is an illegal tactic that is specifically disallowed?"
Is something different this time? Is it the left-leaning court? Am I interpreting the law incorrectly here? Am I missing something?
Im not calling it a sham, just saying 'why isn't it seen that way'?
The owners have repeatedly said there will be football and have forced their season ticket holders to pay for their seats, I guess that means the lockout is a sham because we all know they are going to play football.
The owners had the right to opt out of the CBA and exercised it.
The player's had the right to dissolve the union and challenge the restrictions on their rights as workers and they did so.
The owners are the ones who need a union and demanded the players recertify or they would opt out of the original CBA and now they are trying to claim the players cannot dissolve a union the owners demanded they form. So what the owners are actually saying is that the players had to form a union and have to remain in one. As far as i know that's illegal.
the strategy that the players had all along was to have this played out in the courts. They NEVER had an interest in any kind of negotiated settlement.
The problem as I see it, is now that its in the courts, this is no longer a negotiation, its a court battle run by LAWYERS. And Lawyers by nature are litigators. For litigators its ALL about winning. Its not about what is right or wrong, or justice, or getting an equitable settlement for both sides.
Doesn't matter what the next court rules, there is no one now for the owners to negotiate with. This will be a conflict that some judge will resolve and he won't care about the game, only the "legal issues, and how best to cover his ass on appeal. Both sides will now go nuclear in their strategies because the Lawyers now have control, and THEY will dictate what it will take to win and in those cases its no hold barred
I am now totally depressed. Nothing good will come of this. It Jeffrey Kessler gets his way the game will change. Ironically I would be willing to bet that the Pats will be one of the perennial haves in a league made up of haves and have nots, BUT the great competitive nature of the game as we know it will be gone
And what's REALLY ironic is that the biggest losers in this nuclear winter are the great majority of the players. What stupid, stupid dupes.
I really couldn't care less about who we draft.
So you believe that people who are in unions must be forced to remain in them?
I believe I'm not going to engage you in conversation on this, as you've obviously got an agenda to push. I wasn't taking sides (right now, I hate both of them).
It will be interesting to see the next two things:
Number 1: If the appelate court "stays" Judge Nelson's ruling until the owners appeal can be made. A "stay" just means that the order does not take effect until the appeal court rules (to either affirm or overturn the original Judge's ruling). The Judge in her ruling stated that she belived that the players were being harmed, and that is what she cited as a reason for not staying her ruling until appeal. All Judges operate on the ASSumption not to on up another Judge, so unless the appealate court thinks she is wrong, I don't see them staying her order.
Which leads us to Number 2:
What rules will the owners put in place? Will they do the most defensable thing (in court) and just re-instate the rules from 2011? (Screwing both Mankins (6th year FA) and the Jets (Final 4), or will they go ahead and re-instate a salary cap, rookie wage pool, and 18 game season. Usually in arbitration when the talks breadk down the owners will impose the "last, best offer" whihc included the rookie wage pool and 19 schedule.
We should know if the appealate court grants a stay within a 24 hours, after that, all bets are off, could you imagine Free Agency and the draft starting at the same time???
De-certification is not an illegal tactic, and it's certainly not specifically disallowed.
Decertification Election | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
What you are doing is beginning your argument having already made the ruling/assumption of 'sham', and then trying to ask the question as if you haven't already decided that.
Actually, it's about racking up billable hours.
Seriously, though, most cases do eventually get settled before they reach the courtroom. I expect the same will happen here . . . the question is how long it will take.
I agree with you on all counts here.
IIRC, the 18-game season was not slated to start this year in any case.
You're reading into my statement too much. Regardless, I found the answer:
Wonât the NFL claim that that the NFLPA dissolving is a âshamâ because they did it prior?
As noted, in Freeman McNeil v NFL, the NFLPA has dissolved before in 1989 only to resurface as a union in 1993. The NFL will claim that in dissolving for a second time, itâs a âshamâ â a legal move to avoid bargaining in good faith as a union.
But, thereâs some wiggle room for the NFLPA that was brokered as part of the current CBA.
(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.
So, the NFL and the (ex)NFLPA had an agreement in place that a de-certification could not be considered a sham. That explains it, and answers my question. I'll let you guys get back to taking sides now.
Separate names with a comma.