Players lost in Court | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Players lost in Court

ckparrothead said:
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).
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who has read a least a bit of the info pertaining to the labor situation ; )
 
ckparrothead said:
To me, the judge strongly recommended mediation to get the two sides talking to where we could all begin to flesh out the issues
Click to expand...

That's not to you. That's a fact. There is nothing to interpret. It's fact. She told them to negotiate and decide their own fate.

It is also a fact that players went to court to avoid negotiations. In negotiations players decide their own fate under the deal. In court the judge decides the fate. Players went to court, they do not want to decide their own fate. There is nothing to interpret. It's a fact.

The owners want the players to decide their own fate in negotiations. That is exactly what the judge told them to do. That's a fact. There is nothing to interpret.

Now, the interpretation is what Speesh has been posting, about what the judge may do based on how players feel about the judge. That's an opinion based on feelings.
 
Lloyd Heilbrunn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct, just like in divorce cases in Florida, mediation is required prior to court.
 
ckparrothead said:
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).
Click to expand...


You are correct. I spoke to my father in-law (MN defense attorny who has tried cases infront of the US Supreme court) this weekend as he said the ruling actually helped the players, especially if the mediation was to occur in MN and not DC.

He said the biggest way to see which way a judge is probably going to rule is by seeing who the most questions are asked of to see the defense of their point of view. He said it was very telling that she spent most of her time asking the League questions and not the players. This is done because a judge wants to make sure they have heard everything they can from the party they plan on ruling against based on prior review of a case.

He also said that the owners being able to take payments from the TV Networks while not paying the players is also going to really hurt their arguement because they were supposed to act in good faith for the benefit of the League and Players which they obiously didn't do by planning years in advance for a lockout.

Lastly the judge ordering mediation has no outcome on this case. All it means is that both parties must try in good faith to come to an agreement, but there are no penalties if an agreement isn't reached. It's basically telling both parties to get your act together and try to figure this out yourself before I decide I have to rule.
 
mnphinfan said:
You are correct. I spoke to my father in-law (MN defense attorny who has tried cases infront of the US Supreme court) this weekend as he said the ruling actually helped the players, especially if the mediation was to occur in MN and not DC.
Click to expand...

Of course. If the judge ordered the parties to go to Washington for negotiation it would be a ruling that Labor talks would resume. That ruling would be premature before the final ruling and would spell the end of player's case. She will not do that before the final ruling. this is a no brainer.

mnphinfan said:
He said it was very telling that she spent most of her time asking the League questions and not the players. This is done because a judge wants to make sure they have heard everything they can from the party they plan on ruling against based on prior review of a case.
Click to expand...
Of course she did, because the gist of the issue in front of her is whether she has jursidiction to rule on the case and whether decertification is a sham, because the antitrust allegations by players were not disputed by the owners. For the judge the antitrust ruling is a slam dunk. She had to flush out the labor issues which is the main point of her ruling.

mnphinfan said:
Lastly the judge ordering mediation has no outcome on this case. All it means is that both parties must try in good faith to come to an agreement, but there are no penalties if an agreement isn't reached. It's basically telling both parties to get your act together and try to figure this out yourself before I decide I have to rule.
Click to expand...

There is no order for mediation. If the case is ordered for mediation, which is pre-litigation mediation, it means there will be litigation on antitrust issues, which means owners lose the lock out injunction and case is headed to litigation. But this is not the case. the judge did not order pre-litigation mediation but told them they better use this time to negotiate.
 
Roonnette said:
That's not to you. That's a fact. There is nothing to interpret. It's fact. She told them to negotiate and decide their own fate.

It is also a fact that players went to court to avoid negotiations. In negotiations players decide their own fate under the deal. In court the judge decides the fate. Players went to court, they do not want to decide their own fate. There is nothing to interpret. It's a fact.

The owners want the players to decide their own fate in negotiations. That is exactly what the judge told them to do. That's a fact. There is nothing to interpret.

Now, the interpretation is what Speesh has been posting, about what the judge may do based on how players feel about the judge. That's an opinion based on feelings.
Click to expand...

First off, you misinterpreted what I was saying. Let me clarify. There's been some question as to why the judge didn't go ahead and order mediation immediately. Instead she "strongly recommended it" and now a week later she's set to order it. Out of curiosity, some people want to know why she didn't just go ahead and order it immediately. It's not really very important, just curious. My speculation is that she wanted to compel both sides to begin negotiations on a new session of mediation. That way, she could find out what disagreements they have about how that mediation would take place.

In other words let's say your a parent and you have two kids on your hands that are fighting like cats and dogs and won't talk to one another. You're trying to figure out what to do about it, but you don't know enough about the situation to figure out how to resolve it. You could just say, Johnny gets the toy today and Jeffrey gets the toy tomorrow. But what if Jeffrey really wanted the toy today and tomorrow isn't that important to him because tomorrow he's going to be sleeping over his friend's house, and Johnny really wanted the toy tomorrow and doesn't care so much about today because today he has karate practice anyway? All they told you is that they both wanted the toy, because they're both being greedy about it, and you couldn't tell where their real priorities lay because they're not very talkative. So instead of ruling right then and there before you have a clear idea of what kind of resolution would be best, you get them arguing about it some more, and maybe through that you're able to see that the best result would be to give Jeffrey the toy today and Johnny the toy tomorrow.

Crude, but that's in effect what Judge Nelson did by "strongly recommending" mediation, which got the owners and players talking about the desired circumstances of that mediation, and now that their priorities have been 'outed' the judge can order the mediation and decide which form it should take.

Secondly, you're taking an AWFUL LOT of liberties with what is 'fact' and what is up for interpretation. And you've misinterpreted a lot.

What exactly do you think judge-ordered mediation is? In a judge-ordered mediation, she IS making rulings. She's not leaving it up to them, she's providing the power behind the mediator. When mediation happened before, Jerry Jones could rap his knuckles on the table and just walk out of the room and nobody could do a damn thing about it. If the mediator comes to her and tells her that one side is not negotiating in good faith, she can do any damn thing she pleases to ensure they do. If she wants, she can order that they stay in the room 18 hours a day, 7 days a week negotiating in good faith. She's god, when it comes to this mediation. Does that sound to you like players and owners negotiating their own destiny? I don't think so.

Pretty much everything you labeled as a 'fact' is highly disputable.
 
Spesh said:
"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?


​
Click to expand...

Geez - if there was even a hint an ounce that they could do this on their own like civil adults they wouldn't be in front of a judge -she is simply making it clear that she won't be the lightening rod when all is said and done
 
mnphinfan said:
You are correct. I spoke to my father in-law (MN defense attorny who has tried cases infront of the US Supreme court) this weekend as he said the ruling actually helped the players, especially if the mediation was to occur in MN and not DC.

He said the biggest way to see which way a judge is probably going to rule is by seeing who the most questions are asked of to see the defense of their point of view. He said it was very telling that she spent most of her time asking the League questions and not the players. This is done because a judge wants to make sure they have heard everything they can from the party they plan on ruling against based on prior review of a case.

He also said that the owners being able to take payments from the TV Networks while not paying the players is also going to really hurt their arguement because they were supposed to act in good faith for the benefit of the League and Players which they obiously didn't do by planning years in advance for a lockout.

Lastly the judge ordering mediation has no outcome on this case. All it means is that both parties must try in good faith to come to an agreement, but there are no penalties if an agreement isn't reached. It's basically telling both parties to get your act together and try to figure this out yourself before I decide I have to rule.
Click to expand...

How dare you dispute delusions with facts.

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------
ckparrothead said:
First off, you misinterpreted what I was saying. Let me clarify. There's been some question as to why the judge didn't go ahead and order mediation immediately. Instead she "strongly recommended it" and now a week later she's set to order it. Out of curiosity, some people want to know why she didn't just go ahead and order it immediately. It's not really very important, just curious. My speculation is that she wanted to compel both sides to begin negotiations on a new session of mediation. That way, she could find out what disagreements they have about how that mediation would take place.

In other words let's say your a parent and you have two kids on your hands that are fighting like cats and dogs and won't talk to one another. You're trying to figure out what to do about it, but you don't know enough about the situation to figure out how to resolve it. You could just say, Johnny gets the toy today and Jeffrey gets the toy tomorrow. But what if Jeffrey really wanted the toy today and tomorrow isn't that important to him because tomorrow he's going to be sleeping over his friend's house, and Johnny really wanted the toy tomorrow and doesn't care so much about today because today he has karate practice anyway? All they told you is that they both wanted the toy, because they're both being greedy about it, and you couldn't tell where their real priorities lay because they're not very talkative. So instead of ruling right then and there before you have a clear idea of what kind of resolution would be best, you get them arguing about it some more, and maybe through that you're able to see that the best result would be to give Jeffrey the toy today and Johnny the toy tomorrow.

Crude, but that's in effect what Judge Nelson did by "strongly recommending" mediation, which got the owners and players talking about the desired circumstances of that mediation, and now that their priorities have been 'outed' the judge can order the mediation and decide which form it should take.

Secondly, you're taking an AWFUL LOT of liberties with what is 'fact' and what is up for interpretation. And you've misinterpreted a lot.

What exactly do you think judge-ordered mediation is? In a judge-ordered mediation, she IS making rulings. She's not leaving it up to them, she's providing the power behind the mediator. When mediation happened before, Jerry Jones could rap his knuckles on the table and just walk out of the room and nobody could do a damn thing about it. If the mediator comes to her and tells her that one side is not negotiating in good faith, she can do any damn thing she pleases to ensure they do. If she wants, she can order that they stay in the room 18 hours a day, 7 days a week negotiating in good faith. She's god, when it comes to this mediation. Does that sound to you like players and owners negotiating their own destiny? I don't think so.

Pretty much everything you labeled as a 'fact' is highly disputable.
Click to expand...

truth.com
 
"No lawyer," Boies declared before U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, "wants to stand before a judge and say they have no jurisdiction."
Yet for a significant portion of a hearing that lasted nearly six hours, Boies argued just that as he lay out the league's defense.
. . .
Such were the complex legal questions in play. While lawyers debate these complex issues . . .That's what Nelson is trying to sort out. She expects to make a ruling in about two weeks, and at the end of the hearing urged the sides to negotiate."


"It seems to me," Nelson said during her closing statement, "that both sides hurt."
. . . "We might not even need a trial," Nelson said. "It's possible that you can sit down and work out a plan."

That suggestion was not particularly embraced by Jim Quinn, who argued for the players.
"There's nothing good at the bargaining table," Quinn said. "We did that for 2½ years. It didn't work out.""

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-04-06-nfl-court-analysis_N.htm
 
As I said in a previous post that was deleted for a supposed persona attack I said no one has chosen the side of the owners. the above decision by Judge Nelson proves it. Nelson ordered nothing other then to URGE both sides to the mediation table. Since both sides could not agree on a location, DC vs Minn, Nelson decided to CHOOSE who will mediate and they will do it in Minn. WHILE she takes time with her decision on all mitigating factors of the orginal lawsuit. The owners did not get their way as they wanted DC. Nothing has been decided by anyone as of late. The only thing that HAS been decided is both sides will now sit down with a Minn. judge as mediator in Minn. The case is in her court and there is no way she was letting any party leave her jurisdiction since both sides are still peeing on each other shoes, the honorable Nelson made the correct decision. If you want to mediate, you do it here with the person of her choice. Good sound decision.
 
Lloyd Heilbrunn said:
And the players, who did not want Cohen, "win" on this issue if anyone does.
Click to expand...

Honestly man, of course players do not want Cohen. Is it because Cohen is a bad person? No.

The players do not want Cohen because he is a Labor Law mediator. If the judge sends them Cohen, she is sending them back to Washington. If she does that she is making a ruling before the final ruling.

For you who think that this is a major blow have no clue about court process. The owners simply asked for something utterly unreasonable, which is going back to Washing and Cohen before the judge has ruled on injunction.
 
Roonnette said:
It is also a fact that players went to court to avoid negotiations. In negotiations players decide their own fate under the deal. In court the judge decides the fate. Players went to court, they do not want to decide their own fate. There is nothing to interpret. It's a fact.

The owners want the players to decide their own fate in negotiations. That is exactly what the judge told them to do. That's a fact. There is nothing to interpret.

Now, the interpretation is what Speesh has been posting, about what the judge may do based on how players feel about the judge. That's an opinion based on feelings.
Click to expand...

I've been the one posting interpretation? So i was the one that started a thread that reads: "Players lost in court"? That is a twisted look at a situation in which nothing has happened. No ruling has been made. No one lost, no one won.

Ive made a point of trying to avoid interpretation at all. The only thing i have done, that can be considered that, is look at the current disagreement of venue. Situation: Both sides have agreed to negotiate. Both sides disagree on location. Judge has ordered mediation. My interpretation: the judge made the order so she could get both sides to a table. Is that interpretation completely out of line or unreasonable? I suppose that for others to say. To me, it is logically to assume, based on both sides already agreeing, that this was her way of moving the issue along.

Ive stated numerous times that nothing has truly happened, both sides didn't win or lose. You, on the other hand, have repeated time and again how the players have really lost and we are all misguided and really we are twisting the situation to our benefit. You have repeatedly made claims about facts that i've been able to disprove with proof(there for, not a fact).

For the highlighted parts(another supposed fact), you state: The owners want to negotiate and the players dont want to.
Fact: On March 28th, the players requested formal negotiation with the NFL(or owners).
Fact: On March 28th, the NFL refused.

Whats there to interpret about that? Either they met, they didnt meet, or the players are lying. John Clayton(a reliable writer) reported it from a multitude of sources. And they didnt end up meeting. So its easy to establish the NFL refused. There is proof that your interpretation is incorrect.

Now, on the overall situation, would you like my interpretation? The owners are in trouble. The judge continued to try and piece together the owners arguments and supposed facts, and at one point even noted the irony of their argument. The judge herself suggested that a huge part of the owners defense was false(the claim that the union decertifying was a sham). Multiple respected writers have stated the players are very pleased and the owners lawyer has said "please dont look to much into this". That the NFL has fled back to D.C. and want things to happen there indicate to me just how far they are trying to avoid the impending decision. The case is being tried in Minnesota and a Minnesota judge suggested it would be wise to negotiate. What venue do you think she's going to suggest?
Knowing now what my interpretation is, you can see how its different then what i've previously stated: That no court ruling has been made and the players certainly haven't lost anything....unlike what the title of your thread literally states.
 
Roonnette said:
Honestly man, of course players do not want Cohen. Is it because Cohen is a bad person? No.

The players do not want Cohen because he is a Labor Law mediator. If the judge sends them Cohen, she is sending them back to Washington. If she does that she is making a ruling before the final ruling.

For you who think that this is a major blow have no clue about court process. The owners simply asked for something utterly unreasonable, which is going back to Washing and Cohen before the judge has ruled on injunction.
Click to expand...

You are the one who started this thread saying referring to mediation was a major blow ie "players lost in court" not me.

I've said several times this appears to be standard court ordered mediation.The only unique aspects was whether or not to use the collective bargaining mediator, as opposed to the standard court appointed one.

Speaking of "having no clue about court process", are you an attorney?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom