Some Tweets from court

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
It sure seems like Nelson will have to first rule on juridiction and then maybe need another hearing on injunction - if it gets that far

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
Amazing how much discussion there was on Norris-LaGuardia and the NLRB

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
Nelson indicated the thing she's having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
Nelson did, a few times early in the hearing, mention mediation and why they're not there now instead of not paying the players

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
So this could be headed back to mediation. Seems like it was on her mind. Nelson was very prepared. said this is all she's done for 2 weeks

mortreport Chris Mortensen
RT @ericjudd111: @mortreport Boeis? NFL or NFLPA? >> NFL. Impressive guy but sounds like Judge Nelson has peppered him, leaning for players

adbrandt Andrew Brandt
Judge Nelson's questions indicate a concern w/lockout after decertification. Uncharted territory here.

SI_PeterKing Peter King
RT @Greg_A_Bedard: Nelson indicated she's having a hard time with lockout being legal after union decertification ... Big edge for players

she needs to rule on jurisdiction first (and from reading the briefs it doesn't seem like a simple question), but I still don't see her not ruling on everything quickly and in a single order after a single hearing. this is just the first stop on the way to the 8th Cir and she wouldn't want to be seen as holding up the entire NFL season while she deliberates

I like her sense of urgency, I think she will order the 2 sides back to mediation but as Berk says that is if she has the jurisdiction.
Mediation is the only way this is really going to work, without it being a one year band aide. In mediation both sides would have to agree to the cba.

I think the real question is who will come to agreement first our govt about the budget or NFLPA and the Owners...lol. Anyone want to take a guess. Which 2 sides are likely to come to agreement first?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2011 10:49AM by Crowder52.

Sounds like she urged mediation, said both sides are at risk of losing, and urged the 2 sides back into Federal mediation surpervised by her in the 2 weeks while waiting for her to render decision.

BobGlauber Bob Glauber
by mortreport
Judge Nelson also urges both sides to talk to one another under federal mediation - supervised by her - before she renders decision. #nfl

judybattista Judy Battista
by mortreport
Judge Nelson said she thought both sides at risk, why she urged them to start talking.

Greg_A_Bedard Greg A. Bedard
by mortreport
Hearing finish. Nelson said she will prob need "a couple weeks" to consider both sides fairly

as both sides think they will win and also that winning will give them major leverage in the negotations, I don't see them settling this before she rules. That is, unless cooler heads prevail, they leave the lawyers out of it (pains me to say), and they realize that there is a decent deal to be had if they will just talk and not litigate

I hope they get back together and work something out, if either side feels like they're getting screwed we'll be doing this again in a few years.

I think you are right Berk, the 2 sides PC didnt make it sound like mediation at this level, they could even agree upon.
THe owners seems to want to get pass this judge, whether she rules for them or against them which is weird. IS there a reason the NFL would like the 8th cicuit more then this judge? I know her philosophies are more labor then management but these owners are power brokers as well. The influences on these judges could be the key to a certain degree IMO. It seems like the owners feel even if she rules against them the 8th will take their side. I know nothing about the 8th and the potential judges?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope they get back together and work something
> out, if either side feels like they're getting
> screwed we'll be doing this again in a few years.

I agree , they have to do this in mediation where both sides agree, or this is all just fruitless effort that will not work for then a year or so.

having worked for courts I know they don't want to be hated. unless the law is clear and points only one way, I think they side with the players as that is the quickest way to getting the season back

Which court Berk? You think they will all side with the players? I dont think so, I think the courts doesnt solve the bargaining between management and players, the only way that is solved is through a negotiation between the 2 sides. I think if the court rules with the players. the owners will just try another tactic sooner then later. You think that if the owners are blocked from a lockout, that will solve the problem? It will not, the owners are not going to stop until these issues are resolved. And a new agreement is reached IMO. If the player win the court case and appeal, which I dont believe they will, what does it solve financially, nothing?

Phinsfan-
Did you happen to watch the 2 sides lawyers deliver their respective press conferences after the hearing?

If you did, I think you would have a better undertanding of what I said in my comments. Not the approach you took to addressing what I said and what, Boies and Quinn said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2011 02:32AM by Crowder52.

The owners made it clear they will not negotiate a settlment in the antitrust case only in collective bargaining. The players want a negotiation on antitrust terms, and the owners on CBA. The courts cannot force a new CBA. The 2 sides still have to have some type of agreement or nothing happens. IF the court rules the lockout to be illegal, which I doubt, because you cant be Union with a right to strike against management if management does not have a right to lock you out and I believe that to be a legal issue. If that is the case then Union shall never be allowed to recertify, if that is the case it will go to the supreme court IMO.

The judge said that what ever happens the ruling will write new law. And then the validity of that law will be tested IMO.

And then this still does not get any type of agreement in place, so you think the NFL will have a long term plan of running with no rules or agreement in place, like the wild west. That is naive outlook IMO.
And if it is the case, the owners could just pay less to the players then they are paying now. Sure you might have radical like Dan Snyder buy some top players like the yankees, but alot more teams will result to less payroll, less benfits etc. It will hurt the players, trust me, the owners are not doing all of this for show.
Sure if the lockout is lifted then we will have free agency, and such. but you will just be setting up for a much nastier attitude and battles. And the longer that last, the worse the NFL is. the NFL will begin to look more and more like Baseball, with only a hand full of teams competeing, and the others just making money. Thus making the NFL much less competitive, and hurting the game.
So basicly the more time the 2 sides spend in court and away from the negotiating table the worse off the NFL is IMHO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2011 06:38AM by Crowder52.

ghotirule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Exactly.
>
> BTW - It doesn't appear that the issue of legality
> of decertification has even been discussed. Could
> it be that its only an issue to Crowder52?

> Like I've said, the players won this.

What are you talking about the lawyers argued for hours about the legality of the decertification yesterday in court?
If you are so confident, put your money where your mouth is, I think the lockout will be upheld under appeal. Cnotes anyone?

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which court Berk? You think they will all side
> with the players? I dont think so, I think the
> courts doesnt solve the bargaining between
> management and players, the only way that is
> solved is through a negotiation between the 2
> sides. I think if the court rules with the
> players. the owners will just try another tactic
> sooner then later. You think that if the owners
> are blocked from a lockout, that will solve the
> problem? It will not, the owners are not going to
> stop until these issues are resolved. And a new
> agreement is reached IMO. If the player win the
> court case and appeal, which I dont believe they
> will, what does it solve financially, nothing?


I worked for the DC Circuit and the 10th Cir. I'm not sure what's going to happen, there are too many unknowns for all involved and that's why I think once this district court judge rules there will be a settlement and new agreement worked out. And from what I've heard, it doesn't sound like the 2 sides are all that far apart to begin with?

The owners want a ruling to keep this case forever being judged by an Obama pro labor appointee, which this judge currently is. They want her to make a ruling they dont want her to control anything in this case in mediation other then a ruling on this Brady antitrust case. Then they believe they will win on appeal, which would take the antitrust out of it and back to Collective Bargaining.
The last time in the white case, the owners had a liberal judge rule on a settlement in the antitrustcase, which then helped lay the ground work for what would become the new cba. The players want to play the same hand they did with Reggie White Antitrust and Judge Doty. Judge Doty basicly spelled out in the settlement what is today CBA. The owners through hell and high water are going to make sure that doesnt happen again. They are not going to be scared into settling by a liberal judge, they believe they are going to win the case ultimately. The players I think underestimated the owners moves. They thought the owenrs would settle once the the threat of this judge ruling against them was a possibility. What the players dont understand is the owners never cared about what this judge says or does IMO. The players made a misstep in their plan. WHich is no suprise, these owners are some of the most sophisticated business minds of our time. This is not the typical mid 80's owners. These guys are smooth businessmen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2011 10:11AM by Crowder52.

The owners will not mediate in antitrust. They were in mediation the players wanted it to be antitrust mediation which is why they did what they did. The owners want it to be CBA mediation as it was before the players walked away from the table in favor of an almost certain liberal judge. The owenrs siad fine if that is what you want, we will defeat you in the 8th cicuit and be back in the CBA mediation. plain and simple

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is what's wrong with this whole country
> crowder. Toooooo much focking politics in every
> aspect of life. Something like this should not be
> decided by your political views, it should be
> decided by whats right. So sick of BOTH sides
> trying to push their political agendas instead of
> fixing the G@#damn country! (sorry had to rant)


You are not ranting Dolphaholic, it sucks but I believe all sides are banking if not relying on theses judges ideology, having them legislate from the bench. I agree,It is a huge problem in America. Trust me the players were attempting to use the judges ideology to their favor. SO the owners figure what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The owners just thought a couple of steps ahead of the players.

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
NFL sends letter to NFLPA, proposing mediation in DC with "protection" for players that those talks would not compromise Brady v. NFL...

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
NFLPA sends letter to NFL proposing "settlement" talks in Minn to resolve the Brady v. NFL case. We'll see if they can get together ...

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Both proposals are in line with the existing stances by both parties in regards to how they're willing to potentially resolve this issue

I'm not real sure where you're coming from Crowder? What ruling do you think the owners want Nelson to rule on so they can then get it overturned? If it's the legality of decertifying, i'm not real sure any court can make a group of men be union if they say they don't want to (whether we think it's a sham or not). If they're not a "union" how can you legally lock them out? 32 seperate teams collectively locking out the players sounds like a lawsuit. I think like Berk said, the major ruling she has right now is jurisdiction.

adbrandt Andrew Brandt
NFL desperately trying to avoid judicial oversight of potential CBA with Nelson overseeing settlement. Visions of the wrath of Doty.

OmarKelly Omar Kelly
Interesting:NFL owners say they want to talk through collective bargaining,now players agree to mediation "under oversight of Federal Court"

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not real sure where you're coming from
> Crowder? What ruling do you think the owners want
> Nelson to rule on so they can then get it
> overturned?

The owners believe she is going to rule to that the lockout is illegal based on the decertification of the union, The big question at hand is whether the owners have a right to continue this lockout? That is the main ruling at hand? What else is she currently ruling on?

She already ruled she had the right to defer jurisdiction orthe right to rule, and she is choosing to rule rather then defer. Why would we wait 2 weeks for a ruling on jursidiction?