Jump to content

  •  

Welcome to JetNation.com


Sign In  Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Create Account
Welcome to JetNation.com, your home for New York Jets talk. We are an independent site, which means we aren't affiliated with the NY Jets or SNY. The opinions here are never censored. We want you to join in on the conversation, but don't worry this is a simple and FREE process. Be apart of JetNation.com by signing in or creating an account. When you create an account, you can also opt to use your existing Facebook or Twitter login.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
Also be sure to check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

8th District court rules in owners favor


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51 Scott Dierking

Scott Dierking

    Jerk

  • Members
  • 13,683 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:17 AM

Thats more or less what happened. JMO, but I think the league was caught totally off guard when the NFLPA elected D. Smith to head the union. All along the NFL had assumed that what was going to happen was that Troy Vincent was going to naturally assume Upshaws role once Upshaw stepped down. Vincent had worked with the NFL during the last labor deal and the assumption was he would be business as usual and there would be a smooth transaction once he got elected. It never happened as the new NFLPA leadership, probably headed by Kevin Mawae at the time, pushed for a new type of head- one with a legal background rather than a former player with a relationship with the NFL heads. It totally threw the NFL off. I also dont think they ever expected the union leader to go on the TV and radio and be so vocal and in the spotlight with the rhetoric. That is probably where alot of the bad feelings on the owners side come from and they have been unjustifiably nasty at times to certain players.


Good point on Smith.

Both Smith and Goodell are in their first rodeo. This becomes more of a game of "chicken", as legacies are at stake here.

That is unfortunate.
  • 0
Originally Posted by Blackout™
LOL ignorance is bless.

#52 bitonti

bitonti

    Draft Bathroom Attendant

  • Members
  • 15,529 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:31 AM

This is good news, the players just lost all their leverage. They will cave quickly.


the type of people who cave quickly do not make a living as NFL players

these people never cave. Not even if they are in extreme physical pain

this fight is far from over.

as for the decision last night... the 8th court did some activist judging thats all there is to it. The idea that decertifying was a fraudulent act is flat out untrue. it was a tactic but it was within the rules of the game. all lawyering is tactics.

The court ruled a certain way based on their political/philosophical beliefs and that's not the way the American judicial system is supposed to work.
  • 0

My posts have to get worse, so they can get better.


#53 T0mShane

T0mShane

    You can smell the death upon him.

  • Members
  • 29,773 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:44 AM

The court ruled a certain way based on their political/philosophical beliefs and that's not the way the American judicial system is supposed to work.



Posted Image
  • 0
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#54 JohnnyHector

JohnnyHector

    Where? In the car?

  • Members
  • 6,683 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:57 AM

the type of people who cave quickly do not make a living as NFL players

these people never cave. Not even if they are in extreme physical pain

this fight is far from over.



There is absolutely no parallel between playing on a bum knee after taking a cortisone shot and some demerol and being able to weather financial distress when you've got a wife/ex-wife (or ex-wives) and kids that you need to provide for, all while keeping up a lifestyle to which you've become accustomed.

If the players were not to get any of the "Doty money", it would be a tremendous blow to them.
  • 1
Posted Image

#55 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,763 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:58 AM

the type of people who cave quickly do not make a living as NFL players

these people never cave. Not even if they are in extreme physical pain

this fight is far from over.

as for the decision last night... the 8th court did some activist judging thats all there is to it. The idea that decertifying was a fraudulent act is flat out untrue. it was a tactic but it was within the rules of the game. all lawyering is tactics.

The court ruled a certain way based on their political/philosophical beliefs and that's not the way the American judicial system is supposed to work.

After the Nelson, and Doty rulings aren’t you supposed to put a :P at the end of that?
  • 0

#56 dbatesman

dbatesman

    Courage Boy

  • Members
  • 9,362 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:00 AM

the 8th court did some activist judging thats all there is to it.


Fortunately, the people who support the owners are the type of people who've never had a problem with activist judges.
  • 1

This is like having a cat with leukemia.


#57 Doggin94it

Doggin94it

    2nd Year Banned

  • Members
  • 2,784 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:26 AM

the type of people who cave quickly do not make a living as NFL players

these people never cave. Not even if they are in extreme physical pain

this fight is far from over.

as for the decision last night... the 8th court did some activist judging thats all there is to it. The idea that decertifying was a fraudulent act is flat out untrue. it was a tactic but it was within the rules of the game. all lawyering is tactics.

The court ruled a certain way based on their political/philosophical beliefs and that's not the way the American judicial system is supposed to work.


Bit, this is silly. The 8th Circuit didn't rule, at all, on the decertification issue. All they ruled was:

1) That the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which removes Federal Courts' ability to issue injunctions in "labor disputes" defines "labor dispute" broadly, and isn't limited to labor disputes involving unions (relying on pretty clear Supreme Court precedent from New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., in which the Supreme Court held that the Norris-Laguardia act barred courts from enjoining the New Negro Alliance - a non-union - from picketing a store to protest its lack of hiring of black clerks);

2) That, in any event, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, by its terms, applies not only to cases "involving a labor dispute" but also cases "growing out of a labor dispute", so even if the Act applied only to labor disputes involving unions, this case clearly "grew out of" the dispute between a union (the NFLPA, pre-decertification) and an employer (the NFL teams, as a collective bargaining unit)

3) The Norris-LaGuardia Act likely applies to bar both injunctions aimed at unions and injunctions aimed at employers

4) Based on that, the League has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal of the injunction

5) That both parties will be irreparably harmed if the ruling doesn't go their way (League if it's enjoined, players if it isn't)

6) That the expedited appeal pretty much eliminates most of the harm to the players

The dissenting judge, btw, dissented purely on the issue of irreparable harm; he did not disagree with his colleagues that the NFL was likely to prevail in getting the injunction dismissed on appeal, if only because the Norris-LaGuardia Act means the district judge really had no authority to issue the injunction in the first place
  • 2

I don't need to be mature, it's the internet and we're playing a game of advanced guess who. When you stop whining like a little girl, we can discuss maturity.


#58 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,763 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:44 AM

Bit, this is silly. The 8th Circuit didn't rule, at all, on the decertification issue. All they ruled was:

1) That the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which removes Federal Courts' ability to issue injunctions in "labor disputes" defines "labor dispute" broadly, and isn't limited to labor disputes involving unions (relying on pretty clear Supreme Court precedent from New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., in which the Supreme Court held that the Norris-Laguardia act barred courts from enjoining the New Negro Alliance - a non-union - from picketing a store to protest its lack of hiring of black clerks);

2) That, in any event, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, by its terms, applies not only to cases "involving a labor dispute" but also cases "growing out of a labor dispute", so even if the Act applied only to labor disputes involving unions, this case clearly "grew out of" the dispute between a union (the NFLPA, pre-decertification) and an employer (the NFL teams, as a collective bargaining unit)

3) The Norris-LaGuardia Act likely applies to bar both injunctions aimed at unions and injunctions aimed at employers

4) Based on that, the League has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal of the injunction

5) That both parties will be irreparably harmed if the ruling doesn't go their way (League if it's enjoined, players if it isn't)

6) That the expedited appeal pretty much eliminates most of the harm to the players

The dissenting judge, btw, dissented purely on the issue of irreparable harm; he did not disagree with his colleagues that the NFL was likely to prevail in getting the injunction dismissed on appeal, if only because the Norris-LaGuardia Act means the district judge really had no authority to issue the injunction in the first place


Dam politically motivated judges. What right do they have to base their decisions on established precedent?
  • 0

#59 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 28,351 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:05 PM

I think the NFLPA brought this on itself. I've been complaining about it from the start. It's obviously a sham decertification, but they didn't even pretend. They decertified the way Michael Scott declared "bankruptcy". At least go through the motions.
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#60 PFSIKH

PFSIKH

    Patriots' Paradigm CEO

  • Members
  • 19,401 posts
  • LocationClarksville, TN by way of New England

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:14 PM

the type of people who cave quickly do not make a living as NFL players

these people never cave. Not even if they are in extreme physical pain

this fight is far from over.

as for the decision last night... the 8th court did some activist judging thats all there is to it. The idea that decertifying was a fraudulent act is flat out untrue. it was a tactic but it was within the rules of the game. all lawyering is tactics.

The court ruled a certain way based on their political/philosophical beliefs and that's not the way the American judicial system is supposed to work.


They caved during the last lockout.

You are confusing what they do to get on the field and how the live their lives. Two totally separate issues.

If the owners can keep it out of the courts long enough, players will concede.
  • 0
Eagle Honors
"Our two most painful Patriots' losses ever, are sandwiched between two Manning family Superbowl victories. Talk about being the book of squandered opportunities between two butt hole bookends."
"I just wish they didn't get lucky when they selected that arrogant cleft-chinned, super-modeling banging prick in the sixth round out of Michigan. It's amazing how much I hate Mo Lewis now."

#61 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 28,351 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

Dam politically motivated judges. What right do they have to base their decisions on established precedent?


Shows I should read the decisionn instead of the posted tweets. From what doggin posted it doesn't sound like it was based on established precedent, but on an activist (understandably based on the fact that it was apparently made to foster racial equality) piece of legislation. It doesn't sound like it was put in place to help the Man.
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#62 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,763 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:29 PM

Shows I should read the decisionn instead of the posted tweets. From what doggin posted it doesn't sound like it was based on established precedent, but on an activist (understandably based on the fact that it was apparently made to foster racial equality) piece of legislation. It doesn't sound like it was put in place to help the Man.

In my interpretation it established where the federal judges had jurisdiction, and where they don’t . They seemed to have ruled that Nelson didn’t have jurisdiction. That is what the NFL challenged before her ruling.
  • 0

#63 Doggin94it

Doggin94it

    2nd Year Banned

  • Members
  • 2,784 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:14 PM

Shows I should read the decisionn instead of the posted tweets. From what doggin posted it doesn't sound like it was based on established precedent, but on an activist (understandably based on the fact that it was apparently made to foster racial equality) piece of legislation. It doesn't sound like it was put in place to help the Man.


"Activist legislation" - that's a new one for me :lol:
  • 0

I don't need to be mature, it's the internet and we're playing a game of advanced guess who. When you stop whining like a little girl, we can discuss maturity.


#64 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 28,351 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:49 PM

"Activist legislation" - that's a new one for me :lol:


Isn't it all?
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#65 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 10,181 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:07 PM

The owners claim they they get bent over by an overzealous Tagliabue who only wanted usher a deal, and not have to deal with a work struggle. The former deal does not account for all of the revenue streams, does not adequately address revenue sharing and does not account for all the outlays the owners have,

Extending a deal only continues to allow discontent to fester, and doesn't solve the problems. They need to work this out.


Well said.

Lets get a long term deal done now so this lockout crap doesnt happen again anytime soon.
  • 0

#66 SoFlaJets

SoFlaJets

    Sasquatch Hunter

  • Members
  • 34,666 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:35 PM

this tweet sums it up pretty well as to which side will cave first

Jamaal Westerman
On Wednesday 18th May 2011, @JWesterman55 said:

Might just start a cleaning service during the lockout. Your favorite athlete doing your windows. RT @LisaZimmerman: When you're done, feel free to come clean my place. RT @JWesterman55 I need to clean up this place... think it will improve my mood.
  • 0
 
 

#67 PFSIKH

PFSIKH

    Patriots' Paradigm CEO

  • Members
  • 19,401 posts
  • LocationClarksville, TN by way of New England

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:39 PM

I think the NFLPA brought this on itself. I've been complaining about it from the start. It's obviously a sham decertification, but they didn't even pretend. They decertified the way Michael Scott declared "bankruptcy". At least go through the motions.



Hey DeMo, want recant this statement, "And then they lock the players out and took football from our fans, and yesterday they lost"?
  • 0
Eagle Honors
"Our two most painful Patriots' losses ever, are sandwiched between two Manning family Superbowl victories. Talk about being the book of squandered opportunities between two butt hole bookends."
"I just wish they didn't get lucky when they selected that arrogant cleft-chinned, super-modeling banging prick in the sixth round out of Michigan. It's amazing how much I hate Mo Lewis now."

#68 bitonti

bitonti

    Draft Bathroom Attendant

  • Members
  • 15,529 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:04 AM

this tweet sums it up pretty well as to which side will cave first

Jamaal Westerman
On Wednesday 18th May 2011, @JWesterman55 said:

Might just start a cleaning service during the lockout. Your favorite athlete doing your windows. RT @LisaZimmerman: When you're done, feel free to come clean my place. RT @JWesterman55 I need to clean up this place... think it will improve my mood.


I dunno. This is different than previous "strikes"

there is no picket line to cross (owners locked out all of football)

there is no rush to get back to OTA and training camps

the owners have economic liabilities as well (season tickets, advertisers, etc)

it's gonna be a long fight and the players fight for a living

all jokes aside this thing is not going to be resolved by a simple cave
  • 0

My posts have to get worse, so they can get better.


#69 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,763 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:12 AM

It most likely won’t happen in the near future, but the way for this to get resolved is for the players to re certify their union with new leadership who will negotiate instead of litigate
  • 0

#70 Scott Dierking

Scott Dierking

    Jerk

  • Members
  • 13,683 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:24 AM

It most likely won’t happen in the near future, but the way for this to get resolved is for the players to re certify their union with new leadership who will negotiate instead of litigate


At this point, it does not take any genius to figure out the language that the Court used in its decision does not preclude any type of appeal. Smith needs to understand that. Hopefully he will June 3rd.

At that point, they need to lick their wounds and come to the table together in good faith.
  • 0
Originally Posted by Blackout™
LOL ignorance is bless.

#71 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,763 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 11:04 AM

At this point, it does not take any genius to figure out the language that the Court used in its decision does not preclude any type of appeal. Smith needs to understand that. Hopefully he will June 3rd.

At that point, they need to lick their wounds and come to the table together in good faith.

I agree 100%, but if that happens the owners need to come to the table with compromise in mind, and not thumping their chests as the victor.

If they both sit down in good faith they should be able to work something out in about two days. Or at least get enough done to lift the lock out.

We’ll see
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users