Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 When an attorney makes an observation that a particular issue is in "uncharted territory" then you are talking in terms of a multi-year process with numerous decisions and appeals before anything is settled. Is it in the players interest to have an extended battle where they lose paychecks? Of course not. It certainly isn't in the owners interest, especially if they have onerous bond payments. The union has challenged the owners that if they want a fight they will do it on their turf, the legal arena. An arena where all the combatants get equally stuck in the quicksand of the process. That is in no ones interest. And every is aware of that. The best scenario for both sides is to have the judge (early April) issue an injunction against the owners' lockout and have the squabbling sides back at the table working out a deal. The framework for an agreement is in place. The owners substantially lowered their demands. Now both sides have to be a little more flexible and get this business completed. Johnt's say the lockout is injunctioned on that day. Even if somehow the sides got together the next day the players (who represents them now?) are going to start with "let's see the books". They did this for the 2 weeks that the CBA was extended and while under the supervision of the federal mediator. The owners will refuse and offer their previous final offer. What changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 When an attorney makes an observation that a particular issue is in "uncharted territory" then you are talking in terms of a multi-year process with numerous decisions and appeals before anything is settled. Is it in the players interest to have an extended battle where they lose paychecks? Of course not. It certainly isn't in the owners interest, especially if they have onerous bond payments. The union has challenged the owners that if they want a fight they will do it on their turf, the legal arena. An arena where all the combatants get equally stuck in the quicksand of the process. That is in no ones interest. And every is aware of that. The best scenario for both sides is to have the judge (early April) issue an injunction against the owners' lockout and have the squabbling sides back at the table working out a deal. The framework for an agreement is in place. The owners substantially lowered their demands. Now both sides have to be a little more flexible and get this business completed. I think your assumption is off the mark. The players are not on some sort of jihad to win total free agency or bust. Nor are the owner ready to go the mattresses to freeze out the players and teach them a lesson. They are just fighting over money, neither is looking to dramatically change the basic business model that has worked well for both. Litigation in this context is simply a strategy. The players don't have a lot of cards to play besides decertification and litigation. Last fall I remember seeing all these threads about how the players had zero leverage. I brought up decertification and litigation then which was covered in a number of articles I had read. This is their leverage. I am sure the league saw this coming. What they may not have seen was the recent ruling by the Judge on their lockout insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Want proof that the decertification was a sham? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ece0d8/article/players-pledge-unity-call-for-financial-data-at-annual-meetings The union is still meeting, as a union--and they are still demanding to "see the books". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I think your assumption is off the mark. The players are not on some sort of jihad to win total free agency or bust. Nor are the owner ready to go the mattresses to freeze out the players and teach them a lesson. They are just fighting over money, neither is looking to dramatically change the basic business model that has worked well for both. Litigation in this context is simply a strategy. The players don't have a lot of cards to play besides decertification and litigation. Last fall I remember seeing all these threads about how the players had zero leverage. I brought up decertification and litigation then which was covered in a number of articles I had read. This is their leverage. I am sure the league saw this coming. What they may not have seen was the recent ruling by the Judge on their lockout insurance. I think you might have mis-read or over interpreted my response. I strongly agree with what you wrote in your post. The union's strategy to take a legal route is a tactic. No one wins if it is taken to its fullest course. Both sides know that. Judge Doty's ruling changed the dynamics of the debate. It is now about the size of the slice of the pie. Before the ruling I believed that the owners prepared for a lockout to create a new paradigm, one more balanced toward them. They were knocked off that track when the ruling went against them. As I have already stated the best scenario for both sides is for an injuction to be ordered against the lockout and then the squabbling parties get back to hammering out an agreement. Want proof that the decertification was a sham? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ece0d8/article/players-pledge-unity-call-for-financial-data-at-annual-meetings The union is still meeting, as a union--and they are still demanding to "see the books". WEO, You haven't been reading my posts. You are reflexively responding. I agree that the de-certification is a sham. Are you surprised at that? It is as much a sham as the bogus TV deal is an honestly brokered deal made on behalf of the owners and players. With respect to the financial data issue it is also not an end all issue. It is being used by the union as a hammer to get a better deal. When you got leverage you use it. Why let it go to waste? When your side throws a punch you should expect another punch to come back at you. Haven't you ever been in a fight?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts