Players lost in Court | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Players lost in Court

Not in mediation. If you are in mediation on behalf of your union before litigation such as this, and the magistrate is mediating, and orders you to bring forth evidence, feel free to say no. Of course, be polite and move from the issue.

Remember this in you future endeavors, evidence is only relevant to a trier of fact, like a jury or a judge in some instances. There is no trying of facts in mediation. In mediations, a magistrate is simply a facilitator of discussions in confidence.

Wrong completely wrong do us a favor stay off legalzoom.com. Or better yet stay on it! It is always great entertainment to watch people continue to prove themselves wrong.
 
You didn't answer my question above, are you a lawyer?

What question?

You said there is nothing unusual about court ordered mediation. I agree. Of course there is nothing unusual about that in general. There are some unusual things about this specific order.
 
Exactly, and that is a win for the owners, because the players do not want to negotiate. (And she is not suggesting any longer but ordering the resumption of negotiations.)

Why do you keep saying this?

Jay Feely Interview Transcript from his interview with Mike Florio on March 14.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/14/jay-feely-interview-transcript/
MF: Michael Silver of Yahoo! had a summary of the events that occurred last week, primarily from the players’ perspective, and his take was that at some point this business issue became personal for the players. They felt disrespected in several different regards, whether it was the Jerry Richardson’s alleged actions at the meeting the day before Super Bowl XLV, the “lockout insurance” case and the revelations that the NFL was feathering its nest at a time when the NFL should have been maximizing shared revenue. Do you agree with that take that even though there may not be hate and vitriol, that it’s crossed over from being business to personal for some of the players that are on the front lines of this?

JF: All emotions aside we went to the negotiations last week, and I was up there, with the intent of negotiating a deal and getting a deal done. And whatever the NFL wants to say contrary to that, I know because I was in those meetings every day, how hard the players worked to come up with models and ideas that would best address the problems the NFL said they had, while trying to still represent the players and get a deal done that both sides could live with, you know. And I do think Michael Silver did a good job of explain what went on, the frustration that existed with the players. And I don’t know whether it was a legal strategy that the owners had to not really negotiate with us throughout the week and then at the end of the day come back with an offer that hopefully we would take because we were so frustrated all along.

I think that’s what their thinking was this week to come back on Friday, right before the deadline, with an offer that moved a little bit towards where we were, but the process was so convoluted along the way and there was so much frustration along the way, by that time the players were at the point where we said, “Well, we’re going to utilize our legal opportunities and our legal options as well.” Because had the NFL come to us at the beginning of the week with that offer and said here’s where we’re going to start, I’d understand, because first of all, we came to them with the offer first. Their offer was a counter to our offer, although they didn’t say that, they just promoted it as if that was the offer they came to us with...
 
Page 27 of Memorandum of Law by players for preliminary injunction: "Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction against defendants' lockout would reinstate the status quo."
http://docs.google.com/gview?url=ht...cv00639/119126/4/0.pdf?1300131723&chrome=true

I think you are confusing money with % of profits. The players have not asked for status quo since February. The NFLPA actually offered in February to go from what was a 57% of all profits, to 50% profits; which the NFL rejected. A reduction in % is not a reduction in the amount of money players are getting paid with the amount of growth the league is having. The NFL is trying to hide the true numbers of exactly what that is. The NFLPA is not asking for alot more money, and actually have said it would take that 7% cut. However, this would be based on total revenue and there for is asking for more money as the league grows.
 
The injunction request was filed in March.
This is from 12 February

The players came forward with concessions, a change for the NFLPA after sticking decidedly to the “all we want is the status quo” stance over several months. The proposal offered a cut that would have seen 50 percent of all revenues go to the players as opposed to approx. 57 percent now.
The owners rejected the offer, and cancelled the bargaining session set for Thursday.

http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?...d-rookie-signings&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53
 
Sorry, we are in April, what is on Injunction request in court is what counts.
 
Sorry, we are in April, what is on Injunction request in court is what counts.
SOOOOOOO what you are saying is the players are asking for status quo, which is 57% of profits in a league that grows every year. 57% multiplied by a bigger number (each year) is asking for more money.

And, if the proceedings happen in Minn as opposed to DC, it IS a win for the players. Once again you are wrong in absolutely everything stated in your original post.
 
SOOOOOOO what you are saying is the players are asking for status quo, which is 57% of profits in a league that grows every year. 57% multiplied by a bigger number (each year) is asking for more money.

OK, if you want to look at it that way I concede, it's just that I don't see quo as more money.
 
What question?

You said there is nothing unusual about court ordered mediation. I agree. Of course there is nothing unusual about that in general. There are some unusual things about this specific order.

The question you quoted: "Are you a lawyer"?
 
OK, if you want to look at it that way I concede, it's just that I don't status quo as more omney.
It is a lot more money! That is why the NFL rejected even the 50%. They are hiding and shuffleing alot of things to fudge numbers. That is why they don't want to show their books. I am not on either side, I just want football. I do think the owners should just open the books and quit being shady. I also really hope there is a significant rookie cap. This would make those top picks less of a disaster when they don't pan out and will reward guys that have paid there dues.
 
It is a lot more money! That is why the NFL rejected even the 50%. They are hiding and shuffleing alot of things to fudge numbers. That is why they don't want to show their b0oks.

Of course it's about money and more money.

Showing the books does not prove anything of any pertinence to the deal. Whether the NFL frnachises are making or losing money, the owners want a new deal as a better business model, regardless of the bottom line.

For players to know exact numbers does no good. They can bargain just as effectively by not knowing the books. the only thing opening of books does is open a can of worms to irrelevant discussions.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Well, since You've dodged the question 3 times, I'm thinking not.

But you did probably stay at a Holiday Inn last night....:)

Knew you were coming back with a sword on that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom