Thread: Courtroom football begins: what will happen

Originally Posted by dabears54

find it COMPLETELY diassapointing that the union WALKED AWAY FROM THE TABLE on march 3rd.. THAt is where all this stems from, they have wasted 2+ months to be back at the same place they would have been if they had continued to collective bargain the last $300 million( and gotten the Audited oversight looking for, that league was open to on last deal proposed).. THAT is the problem, the union walking away. no "trust" has been gained since, if anything its gotten worse not better. demaurice smith wanted the court route from day one, and that is where my anger lies- it was a bad strategy them still is a bad stratergy and as we have seen has accomplished NOTHING, but made his lawyer Cronies much richer and NFL fans much poorer nd futrated. neither side is "winning" ad the idea of winnign a court decsion now for "leverage" pretty moot because both sides dug in and nott changing,, all the court win/lose does is stroke an ego, but doesn't Help getting the issues resolved does it? heck you dismiss the NFL win, so have to imagine the Union leaders do also, so nothing is gained in court don't you think?( and if the unon wins, the nfl will dimiss that, just like you dismiss the nfl wins), which is my point, NOTHING good, except lawyer fee's has been accomploshed the last 60+ days..

But we're past that now and even Andrew Brandt, whom you often quote or post, believes that the only way that the players have ever gotten a fair shake from the owners has been by challenging their anti-trust status in court. Given the lack of progress over two years of negotiations that would have seemed a foregone conclusion. The owners had an equal opportunity to prevent that but chose not to.

The simple fact of the matter and the heart of my arguement is that all this stay has done is to have delayed sincere and profitable negotiations even more. What happened in March is behind us. That was three months ago and what I'm talking about is the here and now. The state of affairs as it sits today is that negotiations have been suspended pending a ruling on the NFL's appeal and that ruling may not be handed down for another month or more.

Had the stay not been granted then the lockout would have been lifted and the NFL would be conducting business on some level and teams would be moving forward towards the 2011 season under some form of a temporary set of rules. This could have been done while negotiations took place and we may have had a more normal approach to this season. The continued delays make that unlikley now.

That's my point and not who did or didn't do what 3 months ago. That's in the past, the die has been cast. It's in court now and I wish it wasn't either. But the pure fact of the matter is that if the Appeals Court had followed the law there is no way they could have granted a stay. That's what's creating a further delay and that's all I'm saying. It's not about players or owners it's about a failure to follow the law in favor of political expediency and that's what I resent.

Originally Posted by dabears54

BTW soul, something not getting publicity today, and IMo shows NOTHING good comes from these lawsuits and never should hve left the mediation back in march, the latest proposal fom both sides GOT WORSE, not closer last week.. proving not only was nothign was accomplished going the court route, but made it worse by time AND offers

I'm not surprised are you? The mistrust between the parties is increasing not decreasing. This goes to my arguement that the Appeals Court did not do either party any favors by it's ruling on the injunction. Judge Nelson provided the stick to drive them back to the table and the Appeals Court broke the stick.

I've never been in favor of the lawsuit approach either but if one party believes they can't get a fair settlement otherwise that's what happens. You want to blame the players for walking out of negotiations in March but remember the owners could have prevented that. They are the ones asking for "rollbacks" from a previously bargained position and the players are trying to maintain status quo. After two years of negotiations and requests for specific financial data that would document the owners needs for the "rollbacks" they were still denied that information.

Where else do you suppose they could have gone with this if a stalemate on these issues still existed? The fact that they're now backing of previously agreed upon issues is just one more nail in the coffin of a quick settlement and a new CBA. That's why I proposed that they move forward under a temporary arrangement that allows them to proceed because lacking that I don't see a 2011 season happening.

Originally Posted by dabears54

guess we shall agree to disagree about that.. you "dismiss" the union walked away from the bargaining table, but then blame "the die is cast".. which is on the union.. "IF" they had continued to negogiate in march, no lawsuits, no court, and IMO that $300 mill difference would have been bridged and a new agreement probably before draft and never having this conversation NOW,, and the Owner;s didn't have an equal oportunity, the union WALKED AWAY, the league couldn't stop that- that is 100% on the Union

Dismissing the union walking away, and then saying "well the union won a lower court ruling", Which then got overrules, as the starting point and having an agreemnt that the union wants, just doesn't seem right.

I'm only dismissing it because it's over and done, kaput, finite, behind us and in the past. That can never change and this isn't about apportioning blame. Everyone wants the season to start and all I'm saying is that actions of the Appeals Court is frustrating that. The stay is an undoing of a carefully crafted judgement which pushed the parties back to court ordered and monitored negotiations while at the same time demanding the NFL get on with it's business which "would have been in the best interests of the public".

The stay is "not in the best interests of the public" and it's not having met that condition or the NFL having proven it on appeal there is no way under law that it should have been granted. This is not about what happened on March 3rd, it's about what's happening today as a negotiated settlement slips farther and farther away as the Appeals Court grants what is tantamount to an indefinite stay. My point is that the stay is doing more harm than good.

My last response about this for today is only this. You and I have done a point/counterpoint on this in a manner somehat similar to the bargaining between the owners and the players. We see things diferently and the only thing we can agree upon is that neither of us wants to see this in court.

We don't agree on who's to blame for it becoming a lawsuit nor do we agree on which side presents the better terms for a settlement. We often agree to disagree which is just about what the owners and players have done.

If we can't come to a consensus debating at a philisophical or theoretical level what makes you think that further negotiations in March would have led to an agreement on a real level? A stalemate happens when there are fundamental philosophical differences between parties and that's what's happening here. Both with them and with us.

Originally Posted by dabears54

Soul- LOL, yep we can debate the "philosphical and political differnces" until the cow's come home and never get a consensus.. BUT will Say disagree 100% this CBA has anything to do with judges, politics or philosphy( that is all fluff and nonsense) or "who's to blame"

this is 100% ABOUT MONEY( which IS solid and negotiable).. and how to split the $9 bill... all else meaningless.. and NO COURT will chang that or give them a number.. that ONLY comes from back and forth mediation and negotation,, which is what thy need to get back to and AWAY ffrom courts, philosphical differences, etc

As said above, the 10 part "proposal" from march is good for both sides,, and should be where they negotiate from and "counter" to a different number if do not like the $141- $164 cap numbers.. come BACK with a different number and work from there.. NOT continue with more alwsuits, more coutner lawsuits and more philosphical debates nd arguments that no one wins or serves a purpose : )

besides #1 and ultimate cap( whch is the revenue split),, what else is different or a deal breaker?

Yep, and so do the Republicans and Democrats in Washington D.C. but they don't want to so they won't. Pal, it's all about battles and wars. This war IS over those philosphical differences, just like the philisophical differences between the GOP and the Dems, the money is merely the battleground and in that you're right. If they made money the war then they could put aside their other differences and reach an agreement. But they won't and that the real reason for the stalemate. This isn't benefitting anyone monetarily at the moment.