Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[DaBruinz]

What has to happen for the staunchly pro-owners faction of fans to back off their opinions a little? At this point every authority has favored the players. The owners lost their two biggest points of leverage thanks to Doty and Nelson.

If the 8th Circuit goes the same route, will you guys rethink your stance? How many judges can you swear off before you recognize maybe the owners overshot the mark and underestimated the players a little?

The owners are smart - you go into any negotiation asking to get more than you expect. And they did that and then some, because they had leverage - the players, rightfully, held their ground as well.

Now, the owners are losing leverage by the minute. We'll see how the negotiations go from here.

How have the owners lost their two biggest points of leverage? The reality is that Nelson ignored the CBA stupulations that outline what the players can and can't do in terms of lawsuits if they decertify PRIOR to the end of the CBA.

And just because a JUDGE says something, doesn't make it truth. There are manyt crooked, corrupt and ignorant judges out there. Are they all? No.

If a judge was to rule tomorrow that "The sky is not blue", then you can be damned sure I would question their judgemnent.

 

[DaBruinz]

By every account available to the public Judge nelson wrote her opinion using the precedents set by rulings of the Appellate Court the case is going to. There is a decent chance right now that they will refuse to even consider it because Nelson's decision is so sound it is unappealable.

I'm well aware of the appeals process and anyone who has read what i have been saying realizes that, I just don't see the owners getting any relief there and believe that Judge Nelson has expedited the process by crafting a really solid and unequivocal decision. The owners need to realize that they are on the verge of game-set-match and go to the table with a fair deal for all.

*ROFLMAO* Her "ruling" overlooks several key items that were in the CBA that the Players agreed to. To claim that her ruling is sound is just laughable.

 

[townes]

What has to happen for the staunchly pro-owners faction of fans to back off their opinions a little? At this point every authority has favored the players. The owners lost their two biggest points of leverage thanks to Doty and Nelson.

If the 8th Circuit goes the same route, will you guys rethink your stance? How many judges can you swear off before you recognize maybe the owners overshot the mark and underestimated the players a little?

The owners are smart - you go into any negotiation asking to get more than you expect. And they did that and then some, because they had leverage - the players, rightfully, held their ground as well.

Now, the owners are losing leverage by the minute. We'll see how the negotiations go from here.

I don't believe any decision will lead those who support the owners to change their stance, but to be fair i wouldn't change my opinion on the matter based on the rulings either.On the other hand the actual owners need to really start wondering if they are getting good legal advice or if they have hired people who are simply telling them what they want to hear, and in the case of David Boies I would be shocked if that is the case. Is it that the owners simply will not accept the fact that the law is not on their side and that they are not fully in the driver's seat in negotiations and actually have to bargain in good faith? Given their history in court and the analysis of this Judge's decision i think the owners are almost foolish to continue pursuing this matter and should accept the fact that they have to have a working agreement with the players for the league to operate in the ways they want it to.


If I were Bob Kraft, and actually i'm not, i would look at the latest ruling and get on the phone to the other owners who are on their executive counsel and push for a good deal for all, and that means concessions on both sides.

I believe the player's have won and given the behavior of the owners i don't think they owe it to them to do anything less than play hardball, however i do believe they have an obligation that goes beyond that and in that sense they should be willing to go to the table, negotiate in good faith, give on some issues and stand firm on the ones that are fundamental, and create a deal that benefits all for a long long time.

Give on the rookie cap, even though that will be much harder now than prior to decertification. Free agency

Give on the % of revenues and give back 5% to 60% of adjusted revenues.

Give on HGH testing, but place some limits on the commissioners authority so that he isn't an absolute ruler and has to weigh input from a players committee or something of that type.

Accept the recent structure of free agency as the basis for the system going forward, but eliminate the franchise tag.

Stand firm on the 18 game schedule unless that becomes the only thing standing in the way of the deal and then agree to continue negotiations to keep the expansion a possibility.

Stand firm on no ceiling on revenue sharing, the percentage remains the same but the initial giveback, currently 1 billion, could be expanded to reflect the growth of overall revenues.

 

[DaBruinz]

This is a flat out lie, her decision was based upon the fact that she found the decertification valid.

Proof number 1 that she isn't fit to be ruling on the subject.

 

[townes]

*ROFLMAO* Her "ruling" overlooks several key items that were in the CBA that the Players agreed to. To claim that her ruling is sound is just laughable.

Tell that to the legal experts they are the ones saying it.


Given your expertise i'm guessing you are a labor lawyer.

 

[townes]

Proof number 1 that she isn't fit to be ruling on the subject.

You just said the judge didn't believe the decertification was valid, now you are saying she is unfit because she found it valid. Which is it?

 

[DaBruinz]

Tell that to the legal experts they are the ones saying it.


Given your expertise i'm guessing you are a labor lawyer.

There are plenty who have said she over-stepped her bounds. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they aren't there.

But, whatever. You only care about the players and are oblivious to the realities of ownership.

 

[townes]

Momma raised ugly children, not stupid children. And while the judge isn't all that pretty she isn't dumb enough not to see the scam that decertification really is. She is a political appointee whose ideology has overcome her disbelief. There isn't a person in America with a brain that believes that the union has disbanded, it is a ploy to gain leverage in the courts, and it has worked to date.

D Smith was the driving influence behind this mess, he has to create a work stoppage to build his reputation as a hard ass, pro labor, liberal. One of my major regrets here is that he is earning a paycheck as a lawyer for the players defense team, the NFL should have protested his involvement as a conflict. If there is a hell, there is a special place for him and all like him.

So you believe Judges should force people to stay in unions they don't wish to be in?

 

[DaBruinz]

Its good to know that you think you know more about the law than judges. The fact remains that what the players did was legal even if you don't like it.

The fact remains that only one imbecilic judge has said it was legal. The reality is something else entirely.

 

[townes]

There are plenty who have said she over-stepped her bounds. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they aren't there.

.

Feel free to link to the legal experts who are saying the judge overstepped her bounds. So far i have only heard analysis saying she wrote a strong decision in favor of the players.

 

[DaBruinz]

You just said the judge didn't believe the decertification was valid, now you are saying she is unfit because she found it valid. Which is it?

Actually, no I didn't. Someone else said that. Stop making sh!t up. You look so foolish in doing so.

 

[townes]

Actually, no I didn't. Someone else said that. Stop making sh!t up. You look so foolish in doing so.

Not making anything up but i did mistake one of e unum's pro owner posts for yours and since both are so hyperbolic and poorly informed that it is an easy mistake to make.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is what you fail to understand and the judge idiotically ignored. There is no RIGHT to work ANYWHERE. Not in the NFL. Not at McDonald's. And there ARE at least 3 other PROFESSIONAL football leagues that players can and HAVE gone to. The CFL, AFL and UFL. So this idea that the NFL Owners have somehow restricted the players is absolute and utter BS.

OH, and yes, the Judge clearly is making up her own laws and not truly enforcing the laws on the books. Because the laws on the books contradict her ruling.

1.) Monopolies do not require a business/company to be the only one in existence.

2.) Your are posting about a "RIGHT" that you claim the players don't have when, in fact, the issue is a "RIGHT" that the owners don't have.

 

[DaBruinz]

So you believe Judges should force people to stay in unions they don't wish to be in?

Your question does not fit the statement that was made. How about comprehending what is actually said instead of parrotting yourself every time someone says something about Judge Nelson and the Union and whether or not they have the right to decertify.

Yes, the players have the right to decertify. No one said otherwise. However, there are consequences to when that decertification takes place. Whether it is before or after the end of the CBA. And those consequences were outlined, quite thoroughly, in the CBA. One that the players agreed to.

This is what you are failing to comprehend. This is what Judge Nelson failed to comprehend.

 

[townes]

Your question does not fit the statement that was made. How about comprehending what is actually said instead of parrotting yourself every time someone says something about Judge Nelson and the Union and whether or not they have the right to decertify.

Yes, the players have the right to decertify. No one said otherwise. However, there are consequences to when that decertification takes place. Whether it is before or after the end of the CBA. And those consequences were outlined, quite thoroughly, in the CBA. One that the players agreed to.

This is what you are failing to comprehend. This is what Judge Nelson failed to comprehend.

If you are right she will be overturned, the question is whether you will admit you are wrong when that doesn't happen. i'm guessing you will just call the 8th circuit imbecilic.


The Judge certainly understands the specifics of the decertification and found it valid, the claim she doesn't and didn't consider it is simply foolish.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your question does not fit the statement that was made. How about comprehending what is actually said instead of parrotting yourself every time someone says something about Judge Nelson and the Union and whether or not they have the right to decertify.

Yes, the players have the right to decertify. No one said otherwise. However, there are consequences to when that decertification takes place. Whether it is before or after the end of the CBA. And those consequences were outlined, quite thoroughly, in the CBA. One that the players agreed to.

This is what you are failing to comprehend. This is what Judge Nelson failed to comprehend.

Not really. The issue that the owners were trying to hang their hats on in this matter is just a 7 hour window that would have been after the courts had closed, and that was only regarding their ability to contest the decertification as a sham in the first place, as opposed to any form of proof that such a decert actually was a sham. Is it possible that the judge could have ruled in their favor regarding both prongs of the issue? Sure, anything's possible. Was it ever likely? No.

 

[DaBruinz]

1.) Monopolies do not require a business/company to be the only one in existence.

2.) Your are posting about a "RIGHT" that you claim the players don't have when, in fact, the issue is a "RIGHT" that the owners don't have.

It's not posturing. It's reality. But, continue to suck on the jocks of the players as you have since the issue came up. You've been beating that drum since day one. So I am not surprised, in the least, that you posted your garbage.

Unfortunately for you, Deus, you will not be able to find a single legal document that says that the PLAYERS have a RIGHT to play in the NFL. Not one.

There is not a single document that says that a player drafted by the NFL HAS to play in the NFL. That player can go to either of the 3 football leagues I mentioned or do something else.

Is the NFL a monopoly? Yes. However, it is not the only avenue for players. And with things made easier by the globalization of economies and such and the various agreements between Canada and the US, it's much easier to go and work for the CFL now.

What "RIGHT" don't the owners have? To lock out the players? Sorry, but the previous CBA said they could. And it was a document agree to by the players. Guess you need to brush up on it.

 

[Rob0729]

1) There isn't a court in the land that would see any of those other football leagues as legitimate competitors to the NFL. The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly and will be treated as such in the eyes of the law. For some reason that seems to upset you, but you'll just have to deal.

That isn't neccessarily true. As long as the NFL doesn't engage in practices to keep a league like UFL down, by the law they are legitmate competitors to the NFL. If you open a small shop, you are a legitimate competitor according to the law.

Microsoft won tons of antitrust lawsuits when they had somewhere around 80-90% of the operating system market and even engaged in activities which you could argue limited the ability of other companies to break in. Have an overwhelmingly dominant share of the market does not neccessarily make you a monopoly in the eyes of the law. It is the dominance and the practice of making it impossible for a company to break into the market and get a piece of the pie.

If the UFL can put together a league and get a fraction of the NFL's popularity and the NFL does nothing to stop them from doing business, the law may very well consider them legitimate competition to the NFL. The law and common sense are not always on the same page.

 

[Wolfpack]

Actually, no I didn't. Someone else said that. Stop making sh!t up. You look so foolish in doing so.

Speaking of looking foolish:

"I'm the type of person who knows that there is absolutely NOTHING I can do regarding whether or not there is a work stoppage in the NFL so I am not going to bother wasting the time or energy on it ... So, while you huff and puff and waste your energy being pissed off over something you can't control, I'll be doing other things with my time." - DaBruinz, 6/19/10

 

[Wolfpack]

That isn't true. As long as the NFL doesn't engage in practices to keep a league like UFL down, by the law they are legitmate competitors to the NFL. If you open a small shop, you are a legitimate competitor according to the law.

But we're not talking about how the NFL treats the UFL; we're talking about the (supposed) claim that the NFL can say to their own players "hey, we're not a monopoly because you're free to play for these other football leagues if you want."

There isn't a court in the country that would accept such an argument (which explains why the NFL has not bothered even wasting their time making that contention).

Microsoft won tons of antitrust lawsuits when they had somewhere around 80-90% of the operating system market and even engaged in activities which you could argue limited the ability of other companies to break in.

Microsoft has also lost tons of such lawsuits. If you want to use them as an example, I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more specific, otherwise the example is meaningless.