Thread: There will be football this fall ! the two

Originally Posted by dabears54

Like what? he's the most respected agent in business( model fo jerry mcguire movie) and knows his stuff, what assumptions?he knows the owner's from negotiations and sure knows the players as was the agent for aikmen , moon , and stve young, and currently is big ben's agent among others and is also a lawyer so knows that side of the business also

I'll just add this. Since the next scheduled federally mediated has been cancelled we now know that there will not, in all likelihood, be any more negotiations until after the Appeals Court issues their ruling. We also know that it may take another two weeks or more before they do. That would give both parties about two weeks to resolve their differences before the July 4th dealine Jimmay Irsay claims the league will need in order to proceed on schedule. Although the parties have the right to continue private negotiations similar to those earlier this week I still think it's unlikely that any agreement could be reached before the Appeals Court hands down it's ruling. There are many "if's" around what they may say in it.

If they agree to allow an indefinite continuation of the lockout they may agree that the players have a right to their anti-trust claims and that those cases can go forward or they may do just the reverse and rule that the lockout should be lifted and make the anti-trust cases mute. Judge Bye was quoted as saying that their ruling will come in "due course" but that it will be one that "neither party will like". Possibly something given and something taken from everyone which is usually what happens when you ask any court to settle the matter.

Steinbergs example of trying to get a deal for his client early is a very good example of just how the league works. Delay, delay, delay until you finally have to show your hand and get down to the bottom line. Isn't that exactly what they did in the March negotiations when they presented an 11th hour offer that gave the union little or no time to examine and respond to before the deadline for decertification? Of course it is and they were hoping that it might forestall that decertification and give them a little more leverage. The NFLPA saw through it though and went ahead with their plan and I think that shocked the owners. The verbal scrambling, pleas for continued negotiations and letters to individual players that followed prove that.

I won't knock Steinberg too hard for this but he does deserve a rebuke for this statement. "The rookie compensation system has never especially rational. I had NO CHOICE but to maximize compensation for my 50 first rounders and 8 number one picks. LMAO!! Leigh everyone has choices and one of them might have been to write an essay like your film counterpart Jerry McGuire stating just what you did in this article and circulate it around the offices or the NFL and their teams as well as the NFLPA. You could have told them then what you now feel is safe to say, that vets deserve better pay than rookies. But.........that wouldn't have been very good for your business would it since you had all those first rounder and number one picks to represent. ( said with mucho sarcasm). "You had me from hello" for a minute there right up until your huge ego got in your way and you tripped right over it. You do what's best for Leigh Steinberg that's very evident.

DB I hope your optimism is rewarded, I really do, but I see all kinds of ways that this could continue unless one side gets an overwhelming advantage over the other and forces a settlement on their terms. That's the only way wars ever end. Personally I can't see the Appeals Court handing out that kind of an advantage to either party and so the possibility of a continuation of this war is possible. I'm not writing this because I'm paid to spread happy or negative news. I'm just writing what I see and believe.

Originally Posted by soulman

I'll just add this. Since the next scheduled federally mediated has been cancelled we now know that there will not, in all likelihood, be any more negotiations until after the Appeals Court issues their ruling. We also know that it may take another two weeks or more before they do. That would give both parties about two weeks to resolve their differences before the July 4th dealine Jimmay Irsay claims the league will need in order to proceed on schedule. Although the parties have the right to continue private negotiations similar to those earlier this week I still think it's unlikely that any agreement could be reached before the Appeals Court hands down it's ruling. There are many "if's" around what they may say in it.

If they agree to allow an indefinite continuation of the lockout they may agree that the players have a right to their anti-trust claims and that those cases can go forward or they may do just the reverse and rule that the lockout should be lifted and make the anti-trust cases mute. Judge Bye was quoted as saying that their ruling will come in "due course" but that it will be one that "neither party will like". Possibly something given and something taken from everyone which is usually what happens when you ask any court to settle the matter.

Steinbergs example of trying to get a deal for his client early is a very good example of just how the league works. Delay, delay, delay until you finally have to show your hand and get down to the bottom line. Isn't that exactly what they did in the March negotiations when they presented an 11th hour offer that gave the union little or no time to examine and respond to before the deadline for decertification? Of course it is and they were hoping that it might forestall that decertification and give them a little more leverage. The NFLPA saw through it though and went ahead with their plan and I think that shocked the owners. The verbal scrambling, pleas for continued negotiations and letters to individual players that followed prove that.

I won't knock Steinberg too hard for this but he does deserve a rebuke for this statement. "The rookie compensation system has never especially rational. I had NO CHOICE but to maximize compensation for my 50 first rounders and 8 number one picks. LMAO!! Leigh everyone has choices and one of them might have been to write an essay like your film counterpart Jerry McGuire stating just what you did in this article and circulate it around the offices or the NFL and their teams as well as the NFLPA. You could have told them then what you now feel is safe to say, that vets deserve better pay than rookies. But.........that wouldn't have been very good for your business would it since you had all those first rounder and number one picks to represent. ( said with mucho sarcasm). "You had me from hello" for a minute there right up until your huge ego got in your way and you tripped right over it. You do what's best for Leigh Steinberg that's very evident.

DB I hope your optimism is rewarded, I really do, but I see all kinds of ways that this could continue unless one side gets an overwhelming advantage over the other and forces a settlement on their terms. That's the only way wars ever end. Personally I can't see the Appeals Court handing out that kind of an advantage to either party and so the possibility of a continuation of this war is possible. I'm not writing this because I'm paid to spread happy or negative news. I'm just writing what I see and believe.

At this point, I would like to see both sides to suffer in a way that Judge Bye said would happen. Who knows what that will entail, but I'll be interested to see if they will lift the lockout to spite owners AND do something else to piss off the union. If they lift the lockout, which they should because the owners locking out the players, according to what I'm pretty sure I read was detailed in the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, is illegal by law, I wonder what they could do to the players as part of the "...neither side is going to like..." ruling(s)? It certainly begs the question. It's more clear as to what would piss the owners off, but not so much as to what might make the players angry, unless it happens to do with the players' share of the revenue being shifted dramatically in favor of the owners.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

At this point, I would like to see both sides to suffer in a way that Judge Bye said would happen. Who knows what that will entail, but I'll be interested to see if they will lift the lockout to spite owners AND do something else to piss off the union. If they lift the lockout, which they should because the owners locking out the players, according to what I'm pretty sure I read was detailed in the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, is illegal by law, I wonder what they could do to the players as part of the "...neither side is going to like..." ruling(s)? It certainly begs the question. It's more clear as to what would piss the owners off, but not so much as to what might make the players angry, unless it happens to do with the players' share of the revenue being shifted dramatically in favor of the owners.

They should lift the lockout because their previous ruling flys in the face of all previous appeals court interpretations of the Act. It is totally without precedent and they took a very wide swing off the beaten path with their interpretation of it. Frankly I think that ruling could well be overturned on appeal to the entire court.

What they could do is to order the lockout lifted and then disallow the anti-trust claims or at the very least delay them significantly. Those joint rulings pretty much force the owners to open the doors and gets the players back to the table since they're not gonna have the courts to settle the anti-trust matter for them anytime soon if at all. If they keep the lockout in force and allow the anti-trust case to go forward it may be even harder to get them to settle anything now.

The players ace in the hole is and always has been the threat of anti-trust litigation. That's the boogeyman the owners fear the most.

Originally Posted by soulman

They should lift the lockout because their previous ruling flys in the face of all previous appeals court interpretations of the Act. It is totally without precedent and they took a very wide swing off the beaten path with their interpretation of it. Frankly I think that ruling could well be overturned on appeal to the entire court.

What they could do is to order the lockout lifted and then disallow the anti-trust claims or at the very least delay them significantly. Those joint rulings pretty much force the owners to open the doors and gets the players back to the table since they're not gonna have the courts to settle the anti-trust matter for them anytime soon if at all. If they keep the lockout in force and allow the anti-trust case to go forward it may be even harder to get them to settle anything now.

The players ace in the hole is and always has been the threat of anti-trust litigation. That's the boogeyman the owners fear the most.

After reading more about the way a conservative court misread the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, it makes wonder whether the players have a horse in this race. One would think that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals would go along with Judge Susan Nelson up in Minneapolis and just agree that there be no lockout, but apparently, reading the law and agreeing with it as is will not be something the players can count on. Traditionally, conservatives adhere to the laws while liberals are activists, but in this case, it is entirely different. We are seeing politics being brought into the fold. I would not be shocked, and Lord help me DB and soulman for saying these awful words, if this whole issue winds up in some way before a congressional hearing on labor and antitrust issues. This has been a precedent before, and I would imagine that unless either side is totally stupid and decides to process a writ of appeal as high as the U.S. Supreme Court (which would disastrous because this would take the issue all the way into next calendar year), we could be in for some serious shit. I hope that what you said, soulman, is true and that the courts lift the lockout but kill the players' antitrust claims as well.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

[/B][/I]After reading more about the way a conservative court misread the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, it makes wonder whether the players have a horse in this race. One would think that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals would go along with Judge Susan Nelson up in Minneapolis and just agree that there be no lockout, but apparently, reading the law and agreeing with it as is will not be something the players can count on. Traditionally, conservatives adhere to the laws while liberals are activists, but in this case, it is entirely different. We are seeing politics being brought into the fold. I would not be shocked, and Lord help me DB and soulman for saying these awful words, if this whole issue winds up in some way before a congressional hearing on labor and antitrust issues. This has been a precedent before, and I would imagine that unless either side is totally stupid and decides to process a writ of appeal as high as the U.S. Supreme Court (which would disastrous because this would take the issue all the way into next calendar year), we could be in for some serious shit. I hope that what you said, soulman, is true and that the courts lift the lockout but kill the players' antitrust claims as well.

Well Dags what seems to be going on right now, behind the scenes, and in secret away from bright lights, camera's and reporters prying questions are "settlement talks" between the parties. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...-talks-restart

This is not a collective bargaining but rather talks of a settlement in order for the players to drop their anti-trust suit which is exactly what the players want. What the owners get is a re-institution of the union as the players bargaining representative. Hopefully this leads to a quick resolution of their differences and a new CBA before too much more time has past.

If I read this correctly it would seem that the courts will continue to permit the owners their lockout but will not disallow the anti-trust claims and quite possibly tell the owners their exemption from that will only last until 6 months following the unions decertification which would make that September 3rd just before the start of the season. After that those anti-trust suits can go forward and in addition Judge Doty may award the players significant damages over the issue of the broadcast revenue the owners are getting.

Bottom line is that any further delay will almost certainly begin to have a serious monetary affect on the owners and the players. The owners have no source of revenue and the players get no paychecks. Both sides should now realize that it's time to get really serious about this before the season is lost and the game changes forever in the minds of the fans. Neither side is getting much favor from the bunch of us now.

Originally Posted by soulman

Well Dags what seems to be going on right now, behind the scenes, and in secret away from bright lights, camera's and reporters prying questions are "settlement talks" between the parties. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...-talks-restart

This is not a collective bargaining but rather talks of a settlement in order for the players to drop their anti-trust suit which is exactly what the players want. What the owners get is a re-institution of the union as the players bargaining representative. Hopefully this leads to a quick resolution of their differences and a new CBA before too much more time has past.

If I read this correctly it would seem that the courts will continue to permit the owners their lockout but will not disallow the anti-trust claims and quite possibly tell the owners their exemption from that will only last until 6 months following the unions decertification which would make that September 3rd just before the start of the season. After that those anti-trust suits can go forward and in addition Judge Doty may award the players significant damages over the issue of the broadcast revenue the owners are getting.

Bottom line is that any further delay will almost certainly begin to have a serious monetary affect on the owners and the players. The owners have no source of revenue and the players get no paychecks. Both sides should now realize that it's time to get really serious about this before the season is lost and the game changes forever in the minds of the fans. Neither side is getting much favor from the bunch of us now.

The CSM article seems like a slight beacon of hope. However, aren't these "secretive talks" basically the ones that were going on in Chicago last week, or is this a different set?

And I agree, the time for playing games is over. The NFL is in danger of losing out on more than just big revenues and profits. They're in danger of going down the road that baseball and hockey did back years ago when whole seasons were lost.

It seems that the players, according to the highlighted section in your above paragraph, have the ultimate say in these matters before all is said and done. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Originally Posted by dabears54

Another quiver being slowly dismantled from court, which do think brings an agreemnt CLOSER..

Owners seek dismissal of antitrust suit

MINNEAPOLIS -- As the labor battle between NFL owners and players moved from the bargaining table to the courtroom, judges at each stop have urged both sides to reach an agreement before they have to issue significant rulings.

The latest nudge in that direction came on Monday from U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who scheduled a hearing on the owners' motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit from a group of players for Sept. 12.

Coincidentally or not, Sept. 12 is four days after the regular season is set to open in Green Bay, and one day after the first Sunday of games for the 2011 season.
Shortly after the owners filed their motion to dismiss on Monday, Nelson announced when she would hear arguments on the motion.

The timing is significant, given that the Packers are scheduled to host the New Orleans Saints on Sept. 8, and the NFL has big plans for the first Sunday of action to commemorate the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Both sides hope that hearing never has to happen. The NFL and its players held settlement discussions in Chicago last week, but there is no sign a new collective bargaining agreement is imminent.

A group of players including superstar quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees filed the antitrust lawsuit against the owners, alleging their lockout of the players is illegal.

Nelson initially ruled in favor of the players in April, requiring the league to lift the lockout and let the players get back to work. That ruling has been appealed to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, where a three-judge panel heard arguments on Friday and is considering the matter.

The 8th Circuit put Nelson's ruling on hold while it considers the appeal, though it is unclear when they will issue a ruling. In the meantime, the judges urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal.

Judge Kermit Bye told attorneys on Friday that if no deal is done before the panel comes to a conclusion, they will likely offer up a decision that will be "probably something both sides aren't going to like."

The owners argue, among other things, that Nelson did not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout while the National Labor Relations Board is considering an unfair labor charge brought by the league against the players.

The NLRB's regional office in New York forwarded a preliminary report to the national board in Washington, but a spokeswoman said Monday it "doesn't mean a decision is around the corner."

The two sides are engaged in a sometimes bitter dispute over how to divide $9 billion in revenue, a fight that has already caused some minicamps and offseason programs to be lost, free agency and trades to be delayed and resulted in hundreds of employees for teams across the league having their paychecks cut.

The start of training camp is less than two months away, and teams are already making contingency plans if the lockout drags on. The Minnesota Vikings plan to have a date set this week that, if the lockout continued to that point, would force them to cancel training camp in Mankato.

The owners are required to file a full brief supporting their motion by Aug. 1.

Boy, the Vikings are a worthless piece of shit of a franchise.

That being said, I'm glad that this is working out like it is. It seems like it will be putting the two sides under the gun to get something done, and fast. I hope fast is the operative word, because time is running out.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

The CSM article seems like a slight beacon of hope. However, aren't these "secretive talks" basically the ones that were going on in Chicago last week, or is this a different set?

And I agree, the time for playing games is over. The NFL is in danger of losing out on more than just big revenues and profits. They're in danger of going down the road that baseball and hockey did back years ago when whole seasons were lost.

It seems that the players, according to the highlighted section in your above paragraph, have the ultimate say in these matters before all is said and done. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

They're an extension of those same talks but what's changed is that both parties agree that they are "settlement talks" for the anti-trust lawsuit and not CBA negotiations. The hearing on that takes place in front of Judge Nelson again where the owners haven't been treated as graciously as they have by the appeals court.