Players lost in Court | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Players lost in Court

Roonnette said:
She absolutely will keep negotiations in Minn before the final ruling. Sending the negotiations to Washington would in effect be a ruling on Labor Law issue before the ruling, and that's not going to happen for a few weeks. So that is not even an issue I am raising.
Click to expand...

That is all this is really determining right now, if they can't come to an agreement. This really isn't much of anything.
 
Roonnette said:
Look man, The players want the court to decide the deal. They filed antitrust litigation. To them it's about antitrust. To owners it's about continued negotiation. Owners asked for continued negotiation. They got it from the judge. They won. What part of that don't you understand? And Speesh has posted evidence of that.
Click to expand...

I posted evidence that neither side had won and neither side had lost. Heck, if you looked at those links, you could see the owners are in a bit more of a dangerous spot then the players. If the judge rules mediation has to occur in Minnesota, which you yourself said was she must, the owners stumble badly. They have avoided Minnesota as much as possible.

Where have you gotten this solid opinion that the players refuse to negotiate? You keep stating it over and over again.

You are 100 percent correct. Lawyers for the owners refuse to meet with the settlement attorneys for the players unless the trade association identifies itself as a union, which the players won't do at this time. The players, according to multiple sources, planned to meet with the owners March 28 and spend the week settling this mess. All that had to be done was have a short document go to federal judge Susan Nelson's court saying that the NFLPA's executive board would serve as advisors. The NFL's answer was no. This will be the only way a deal can be reached. Like you, we all wish both sides would go to the bargaining table instead of the courts.
Click to expand...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6286514
 
Answer these three question to yourself:

1. Do players want the court to tell the parties to negotiate?
2. Do owners want the court to tell parties to negotiate?
3. Did the court tell them to negotiate?
 
Let me explain why the judge's appeal to negotiations is significant to the final ruling.

This judge said that the ruling on "injunction," not the litigation, but injunction of lockout, will be in several weeks.

1. If the judge was inclined to view the dispute under antitrust law, as the players want, the lockout ruling could come much sooner because the lockout is illegal under antitrust. Owners did not even dispute this, so this decision under antitrust is a slam dunk. Rather, owners alleged lack of jurisdiction in court, and decertification as sham, which is what the judge will rule on. Since the judge is taking three weeks to rule on this indicates that she is inclined to view this under labor dispute.

2. The judge told them to negotiate, not mediate. If the judge was inclined to strike the lockout, and force the parties to mediate, she could have struck the lockout quickly under antitrust and order pre-litigation mediation, since litigation is next, which is the normal course of business. Mediation, or more correctly negotiation in this case, during injunction ruling is highly unusual. Pre-litigation mediation is usual. It indicates that the judge is inclined to view this as labor dispute.

3. The fact that owners asked the judge to allow them to negotiate in D.C. before the judge has made the ruling on lockout issue is unreasonable because the judge would be making a ruling on Labor Law issue before the final ruling. The fact that owner's lawyers placed this request indicates they are getting favorable vibes from the court. The fact that the judge is considering D.C. negotiations is even more of an indication that she views the dispute as labor issue and not antitrust issue.

4. The fact that players are acting on judge's suggestion to negotiate when there is no order to mediate is also an indication that the judge views the dispute as labor law issue and not antitrust.
 
I think that people like us believe that we the fan have to have football, the most important person in this matter is The Fan, we're the ones who pay the high ticket prices, getting NFL sunday ticket, and then Dmaurice says it's about The Fan, The Fan don't care about anything that goes on with the NFL as an entity but we love our teams. I don't believe that when you're making millions of dollars regardless if you're the 1st man or the 53rd man on the roster that you should be able to tell the boss that you work for how much money he can make when he's paying you hugh sums of cash. I also want it to be fair too but what is fair? They need to get their rich A_ _ _s back to the table and negotiate or mediate a solution to this situation, the owners are not greedy they're trying to be careful and conservative with the revenues.
 
Roonnette said:
Answer these three question to yourself:

1. Do players want the court to tell the parties to negotiate?
2. Do owners want the court to tell parties to negotiate?
3. Did the court tell them to negotiate?
Click to expand...

Yes
Yes
Yes
 
Roonnette said:
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.
Click to expand...
The players lost ? You obviously don't understand the process. Actually the judge told the two sides to sit down again and negotiate, or she would rule in the near future. If she rules, the NFL will undoubtedly lose. The draft is illegal, the NFL the way is set up is illegal, but has protection from Congress with a special law allowing them to bypass all anti-trust laws. If this goes to court, a judge will definitely rule in favor of the players.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by JerryD
Judge is telling them not to get all lawyer/legal/law happy, please negotiate & solve the dang problem by coming to a comprehensive agreement.

Spesh said:
This.
Click to expand...

"This" is the Judge copping out - "This" means diddly squat..., everyone has been here before - "This" means she is washing her hands clean of her decision because someone is going to dislike her - ever heard of Pontius Pilate?

She does not want to be the focus of these preceedings - but yet this is excatly what she is paid to do...
 
rev kev said:
"This" is the Judge copping out - "This" means diddly squat..., everyone has been here before - "This" means she is washing her hands clean of her decision because someone is going to dislike her - ever heard of Pontius Pilate?

She does not want to be the focus of these preceedings - but yet this is excatly what she is paid to do...
Click to expand...

"This" is what should happen, what the judge wants, and what the focus of any forced mediation is about. Even the owners lawyer stated the lawsuit is completely secondary to agreeing to a new CBA. If both sides agree to a deal happily, whats it to her? In that case, doesnt everyone win?

James Quinn, an attorney for the players, said they'd "listen carefully'' to Nelson's recommendation. But David Boies, a lawyer for the league, hedged when asked about Nelson's offer to supervise talks.
"We don't need a settlement of this lawsuit,'' Boies said. "What we need is a collective bargaining agreement so that players can go on playing and the league can put on games. Until we have that, we're not going to make any progress.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...th.ld.writethru.1318/index.html#ixzz1JEFkMEZz
Click to expand...
​
 
As of this morning:

There are differences between now and 1993, though. The players liked what they heard from Nelson last Wednesday and seem to feel good about taking the chance she'll force the owners to end the lockout. The players are not motivated to give an inch in CBA talks. And the owners, as I reported a couple of weeks ago, have a line-in-the-sand point they won't budge on. That's their desire to not have a federal judge be the referee in any future labor disputes that come with officiating the next CBA, the way Doty did with the last CBA over 18 years. So they don't want to let the federal courts officiate a settlement in this case, for fear that the same system would remain in place, a system they felt was tilted toward the players.
Click to expand...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/04/10/mmqb/1.html​

Again, so who really lost here? The owners don't want a federal judge involved, and now one is forcing mediation. That really doesn't sound like the players lost.
 
Spesh has the right of this.

I do not believe Roonnette has interpreted the situation correctly. The players are finding a VERY friendly ally in Judge Nelson. That much became obvious at the actual hearing, in the comments she made and in her lines of questioning. The players are not opposed to returning to mediation. There was specific disagreement with the venue of the mediation, and who would conduct it.

To me, the judge strongly recommended mediation to get the two sides talking to where we could all begin to flesh out the issues that prevent them from engaging in mediation again. That was a savvy move on her part. She compelled them to discuss mediation and now that she has a firm grasp on the disagreements between the two sides preventing mediation, she can try and figure out a solution for that problem as part of her order for mediation. Pro Football Talk speculated that her solution would be to give the NFL the mediator it wants (George Cohen), but the NFLPA the venue that it wants (Minnesota).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom