DanInUticaTampa Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Every media outlet has been reporting that the players want to negotiate in a courtroom setting where any agreement could/would be binding. The owners want a mediator that is non-binding. I'm not sure why you keep refuting this. Just because the players want binding mediation, doesn't mean this is binding mediation. There is no credible news outlet in the world that has said that the mediation that starts on thursday is going to be binding or not. Edited April 12, 2011 by DanInUticaTampa
Ramius Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Just because the players want binding mediation, doesn't mean this is binding mediation. There is no credible news outlet in the world that has said that the mediation that starts on thursday is going to be binding or not. No, and that was my point. The players want binding mediation (which is what papazoid is arguing against), the owners don't. I've not seen anywhere that this is binding mediation, so this round goes to the owners. I dont have a link for the players requests, because it was said on total access on NFLN.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 No, and that was my point. The players want binding mediation (which is what papazoid is arguing against), the owners don't. I've not seen anywhere that this is binding mediation, so this round goes to the owners. I dont have a link for the players requests, because it was said on total access on NFLN. there is no link.....because the players have NEVER asked for "binding" mediation.
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 lol.....so you have no source.......stop using the word BINDING.....the players are NOT going to give up their collective bargaining rights by submitting to BINDING mediation. they are looking for the most advantagious venue to discuss the issues. that is thru the anti-trust Tom Brady et al litigation in a minnesota court thru NON-binding mediation....just like last time, those negotiations led to a settlement. there is no agreement ENFORCED by the courts....Nelson's involvement won't be binding, but she would have more ability to control talks than Cohen could, while overseeing an appointed mediator. First, with Nelson overseeing the talks, only she and Boylan could declare an impasse. Second, as the sides agreed on individual issues, she or the appointed mediator could move each one off the table, making for a more efficient process, without allowing one side or the other to go back on something that was already agreed upon. In any case, if mediation fails and Nelson rules, no matter which way that ruling goes, an appeal would be a near certainty, taking this case to the eighth circuit. The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union...... Anyway, the players want any agreement to be enforced by the court. I'll stop using the word binding if it hurts you. But you have to stop pretending that widely reported media stories on this very topic have no player source for an undisputed (well, almost) and obvious point.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union...... Anyway, the players want any agreement to be enforced by the court. I'll stop using the word binding if it hurts you. But you have to stop pretending that widely reported media stories on this very topic have no player source for an undisputed (well, almost) and obvious point. not one single player or union leader has uttered on or off the record they want BINDING MEDIATION.....you keep ignoring this FACT. your assertion the NFLPA or current trade association wants binding mediation is FALSE. the court can not FORCE an agreement. once an agreement is reached a court can "enforce" it, like any other contract between two parties. both the owners and players would want a court to "enforce" a contract. neither party would want a court to decide the parameters of an agreement.
Ramius Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 not one single player or union leader has uttered on or off the record they want BINDING MEDIATION.....you keep ignoring this FACT. your assertion the NFLPA or current trade association wants binding mediation is FALSE. the court can not FORCE an agreement. once an agreement is reached a court can "enforce" it, like any other contract between two parties. both the owners and players would want a court to "enforce" a contract. neither party would want a court to decide the parameters of an agreement. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6304671 The NFL wants mediation to continue in Washington with federal mediator George Cohen, who led three weeks of talks between the two sides. The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. Seems like the players want a more binding mediation in front of a court that would have some power. Currently, they are engaged in a non-binding mediation. Seems like the owners win this round.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6304671 Seems like the players want a more binding mediation in front of a court that would have some power. Currently, they are engaged in a non-binding mediation. Seems like the owners win this round. NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!! ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners). again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground.
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!! ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners). again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground. You're hopeless.
Ramius Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!! ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners). again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground. Easy there spaz. Go ahead and keep on ignoring whats right in front of your eyes.
CosmicBills Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 It doesn't matter who won this round or who didn't (let's just call it what it was: a draw). The judge made the right decision NOT to interfere. Force the parties back to the table. If they still screw around and drag their feet THEN step in and force a solution. End of the day what matters is that they're going to resume negotiations which means we're possibly one step closer to a solution that will bring Football back.
Ramius Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 It doesn't matter who won this round or who didn't (let's just call it what it was: a draw). The judge made the right decision NOT to interfere. Force the parties back to the table. If they still screw around and drag their feet THEN step in and force a solution. End of the day what matters is that they're going to resume negotiations which means we're possibly one step closer to a solution that will bring Football back. We finally agree on one thing in this dispute. The judge needs to lay the old parental law with "figure it out yourselves, because neither side is going to like it if i have to step in."
Hplarrm Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union...... Not exactly. The NFLPA still exists as an entity (I think it is a not for profit entity incorporated under IRS regulations- likely an entity known as a 501c3 but I am not sure of the exact subsection). It has chosen under US Labor law and consistent with the CBA which bars NFLPA members from filing individual lawsuits as long as the CBA is operational to decertfy itself as the bargaining agent for the players to agree to and operate the CBA. However, the NFLPA still exists as an entity but now that the the CBA is not operational because the NFLPA hs decertified itself it is still operating to organize actions like the individual lawsuits filed by Brady et al. In fact the NFL is arguing in court that the decertification is a sham and the NFLPA is still acting as an agent for all the players despite decertidication on the specific point of the CBA. By decertifying the players have actually gained more rights and abilities as individuals since it was through the CBA that they agreed to give up rights afforded to all Americans (such as the ability to petition in court against the NFL) through the CBA. By locking out the players, they have decided to pursue other avenues to reach settlement as the owners exercised their ability to reopen the deal and then declared an impasse allowing them to impose their current offer on the players. The right to collectively bargain is not one laid out in specific language in the constitution. However, individual rights such as those to petition the courts and the right to free association which gathering together to form a workers' union is based upon are constitutional rights. The mere act of the NFLPA decertifying itself as a bargaining agent with the NFL does not abridge the rights of an individual player to take constitutional actions like petition the courts(in fact it increases those) nor does it abridge the right of individuals to freely associate or take legal actions as a trade union. In fact, by decertifying itself, my sense is that the real beneficiaries might well be the draftees if they choose to sue the NFL for abridging the rights of individuals to sign personal services contracts with NFL teams. In other professional sports individual sign contracts with teams not only once they become adults but actually sign contracts at the age of 16 with their parents permission. The NFL has hidden behind the fig leaf of agreement with the NFLPA to bar teams from signing contracts not only with kids with their parents consent but in fact bars adults from signing legal contracts until their age group turns 21. It interests me that clearly the NFLPA is talking with young likely draftees such as Von Miller as it strikes me that if one of these individuals filed suit against the NFL after the draft that without the figleaf of the NFLPA this individual would win this lawsuit against the owners for colluding with each other to force him to sign only with the team which drafted him. All other Americans get to assess the country and all the potential employers who are competing with each other in our free market. Instead, the reality is that if the athlete wants to play pro football at the highest level he can he is forced to sign with one and only one team without regard to who bids highest or where he wants to live. This abridgement of the fundamental rights of the individual might fly in Cuba where Fidel tells you where to live but is simply un-American. My guess is the courts do not stand up for the individual when their is a certified union negotiating the CBA, but after the decert we will see.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about. Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml# The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me): "(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation." While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding. The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views. Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html : "The mediation ... is non-binding."
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html : "The mediation ... is non-binding." that is correct.....and the players NEVER requested "binding" mediation...... LINK SAYS: U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson, who is presiding in St. Paul over the players' antitrust suit against the league, issued an order forcing the two sides to resume mediation beginning on Thursday in Minnesota and appointed Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan to preside over the talks. The move was something of a win for the players' side since they wanted the talks to resume in federal court.
papazoid Posted April 13, 2011 Author Posted April 13, 2011 If the parties would rather take their shot for litigation, you could make them sit there forever and there still won't be an outcome," said Seth Borden, a labor law expert at McKenna, Long and Aldridge in New York. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6336516
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html : "The mediation ... is non-binding." Correct, non-binding.
Mickey Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground. So are the owners. I have to believe that this is simply strategy working on both sides so as to improve their position in negotiations. A lockout means that the players don't cash their much needed paychecks and I don't care how much $ the union has put aside to help players make ends meet until a deal is done. That puts a limit on just how long the players can mess around with litigation. I believe that no lockout means that football and the players paychecks will go on as before while either litigation or a negotiated settlement brings the impasse to an end. I am not sure of the mechanics of what happens if the league is enjoined from imposing a lockout but that is my understanding. As a lifelong litigator, that is my guess based on what little we know. One thing is for certain, every single public statement made by either side is not for the purpose of keeping the fans informed with up to date, accurate information. Every public word they utter is for the purpose of advancing their position at the bargaining table and for no other. If the parties would rather take their shot for litigation, you could make them sit there forever and there still won't be an outcome," said Seth Borden, a labor law expert at McKenna, Long and Aldridge in New York. http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6336516 Time is an element of litigation strategy. The reason so many disputes settle is that when you let a case go the jury or, in a bench trial, to the judge, you are rolling the dice. Uncertainty = fear, fear = settlement. Edited April 13, 2011 by Mickey
papazoid Posted April 13, 2011 Author Posted April 13, 2011 Players not in any hurry.... For veteran players, Ross Tucker says missing training camp is “the dream”. “People talk about it all the time: What is the hard and fast deadline?” Tucker asked. “Well, when a vast majority of your membership doesn’t really even want to go to training camp, they don’t want to go to two-a-days, ideally for them it would get resolved, I don’t know, August 10th. We have a week of free agency. Then August 17th we have two or three weeks of preseason and then play the season. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/for-veteran-players-ross-tucker-says-missing-training-camp-is-the-dream/
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Players not in any hurry.... For veteran players, Ross Tucker says missing training camp is “the dream”. “People talk about it all the time: What is the hard and fast deadline?” Tucker asked. “Well, when a vast majority of your membership doesn’t really even want to go to training camp, they don’t want to go to two-a-days, ideally for them it would get resolved, I don’t know, August 10th. We have a week of free agency. Then August 17th we have two or three weeks of preseason and then play the season. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/for-veteran-players-ross-tucker-says-missing-training-camp-is-the-dream/ That article doesn't quote a single NFL player.
papazoid Posted April 14, 2011 Author Posted April 14, 2011 very good summary: N.F.L. and Players See Same Forest, Different Trees: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sports/football/15nfl.html
Recommended Posts