Players lost in Court

[Roonnette]

I am proud to announce that players have lost in court, since I have no seen it reported like that anywhere.

What has been reported is that the judge is forcing mediation, or negotiations. In other words, the judge is telling the parties, the players, to sit down and negotiate.

This is not what the players went to court for. They went to court to get the court order to preserve status quo CBA. The players lost in court with that order from the bench.

In addition, any negotiated deal will inevitably be less favorable than the old CBA. Which is why the players did not want to negotiate in the first place and went to court.

What this means for fans is that the negotiations saga continues and may continue for months since court order is unlikely.

 

[JerryD]

Whaaat?? Proud??

There us no ruling. Your analysis/conclusions are not reality.

The judge simply told them to negotiate & try to solve it on their own ... most judges do this in most cases. Nothing has happened yet is the conclusion. The case continues.

 

[mega-fin-love]

the players did not lose. This info is bogus. If the players had lost then it would be all over the place. There is nothing to back up anything that was said in this post

 

[Roonnette]

The final ruling has not been issued, but this is unlike other cases with settlement negotiations.

The gist of this dispute is whether to negotiate or not. In other words, the players went to court precisely to get a court order that they do not have to negotiate and to preserve status quo. That's what the case is about.

The minute the judge said she will issue the final order in several weeks but they better start negotiating in the meantime, the players lost. Because that is precisely what they went to court for not to do--to not negotiate.

 

[JerryD]

Nope. The case has nothing to do with negotiating. Its about ruling on Federal Labor Law.

Its about if owners can collude as a group to lock individuals/players out (that's why union decertified). Besides, this case is just to get a ruling that owners are banding together illegally (colluding in an illegal trust) ... so players can later file their big case about collusion, monopoly, & anti-trust.

Judge is telling them not to get all lawyer/legal/law happy, please negotiate & solve the dang problem by coming to a comprehensive agreement.

 

[LANGER72]

So the players are forced to negotiate. The judge did not give the players what they were seeking. Roonette understands the picture.
The court preceding were ridiculous. The players lawyer is a total self serving nut job.
The owners have the upper hand as they should. The players are the employees.
This will get real ugly until the paychecks stop coming to both parties. Then there will be some quick compromise.
I figure 2 preseason games will be lost.
The pre-season will be 2 preseason games, and a 16 game regular season schedule.
That is how I see it playing out.

 

[Spesh]

No one won or lost anything. The judge pushed for them to negotiate on the first day of the hearings. Since then, the players and owners haven't been able to agree on a location, thats all. Hell, the two sides have spoken over the phone, just not in person. The judge is now going to cut out the bickering and get them to a table.

The league had wanted more mediation in Washington D.C., while federal mediator George Cohen and the NFL Players' Association wanted mediation in Minnesota.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6324392

Keep in mind, both sides have wanted to avoid negotiations. The players seemed willing to talk before the court date, but the owners refused unless the players recertify as a union. The owners would be more then willing to deal with the union, but players refuse to recertify until after the court date. As well...

The NFL says a union can't just "flick a light switch'' and decertify to their liking. The two sides spent a long time arguing over the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Depression-era legislation meant to protect workers from a federal judge's ability to stop a strike.
Quinn pointed to the irony of owners using that to defend a lockout, and Nelson agreed. She sounded firm in her belief that the decertification is legal, pointing to court precedent in the last antitrust suit filed by players in the early 1990s.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nfl.lockout.10th.ld.writethru.1318/index.html

Hardly what you call the players losing.​

 

[LANGER72]

Nope. The case has nothing to do with negotiating.

Its about if owners can collude as a group to lock individuals/players out (that's why union decertified). Besides, this case is just to get a ruling that owners are banding together ... so they can bring their big case about collusion, monopoly, & anti-trust.

Judge is telling them not to get all lawyer/legal/law happy, please negotiate & solve the dang problem by coming to a comprehensive agreement.

Of course the owners can lock the players out. They can even hire new scrub players if they want to.
This has happened before. The owners are the principals of the league. The players are employees of the owners.
If the players do not like this then let them try to start their own league...oh wait...someone will have to come up with the cash...and become an owner!

 

[Spesh]

Judge is telling them not to get all lawyer/legal/law happy, please negotiate & solve the dang problem by coming to a comprehensive agreement.

This.

 

[JerryD]

Of course the owners can lock the players out. They can even hire new scrub players if they want to.
This has happened before. The owners are the principals of the league. The players are employees of the owners.
If the players do not like this then let them try to start their own league...oh wait...someone will have to come up with the cash...and become an owner!

Thanks for the legal opinion, BUT ...

Labor & Anti-Trust laws say differently ... we'll have to see what the judges say.

 

[Roonnette]

Nope. The case has nothing to do with negotiating. Its about ruling on Federal Labor Law.

Let me break it down:

1. The parties were negotiating new CBA under Labor Laws? yes.
2. The players left negotiations because they did not want to negotiate? Yes.
3. The Players went to court to get a ruling? Yes.
4. They asked for court to rule they are not under labor law? Yes.
5. Since they are not under Labor law, they asked the court to preserve old CBA and agreements? Yes.
6. The judge told them to negotiate? Yes.

Did the players get what they asked for? No.

Did owner ask the court to tell players to continue negotiations? yes.
Did owners get what they asked for? Yes.

Players no, owners yes.


The ruling on Labor law is precisely the ruling on whether to continue negotiating or not. that's the gist of the case. That's what this is all about, whether to negotiate or not.

 

[LANGER72]

Thanks for the legal opinion, BUT ...

Labor & Anti-Trust laws say differently ... we'll have to see what the judges say.

Obviously I am not a lawyer, I am just speaking in generalities.
If you read the story, as I understand it, the judge has ordered both parties back to the table where it will be settled. End of story.

 

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Let me break it down:

1. The parties were negotiating new CBA under Labor Laws? yes.
2. The players left negotiations because they did not want to negotiate? Yes.
3. The Players went to court to get a ruling? Yes.
4. They asked for court to rule they are not under labor law? Yes.
5. Since they are not under Labor law, they asked the court to preserve old CBA and agreements? Yes.
6. The judge told them to negotiate? Yes.

Did the players get what they asked for? No.

Did owner ask the court to tell players to continue negotiations? yes.
Did owners get what they asked for? Yes.

Players no, owners yes.


The ruling on Labor law is precisely the ruling on whether to continue negotiating or not. that's the gist of the case. That's what this is all about, whether to negotiate or not.

Nope, a judge can order parties to mediation and quite often do. But a judge has no power to make them settle. If the players and the owners say after mediation, no we could not settle, the judge must decide the pending issues.

 

[Spesh]

Obviously I am not a lawyer, I am just speaking in generalities.
If you read the story, as I understand it, the judge has ordered both parties back to the table where it will be settled. End of story.

Please link the part of the article that said either side was going to be forced to agree to a deal before the judges ruling.

 

[Roonnette]

Nope, a judge can order parties to mediation and quite often do. But a judge has no power to make them settle. If the players and the owners say after mediation, no we could not settle, the judge must decide the pending issues.

That is true. But that is not what the judge ordered, and it's not the case here.

The judge told them that she will rule in several weeks. She set the date for ruling. But in the meantime they better negotiate. This is not even mediation since there is no order to mediate as in classic cases for damages where parties mediate to curb the risks of lawsuit. This is not a classic trial case. This case is akin to ruling on determination of right--what are they to do under the law. And if the case be that players are right on point of law then the trial is simple since I don't think there are many points of fact the parties disagree on if any. there is really nothing to try.