PFT: Oral arguments end, judge encourages sides to negotiate/Lockout could last year

[WoodysGirl]

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on June 3, 2011, 12:50 PM EDT

Now we wait. Again.

Oral arguments have concluded Friday in St. Louis, where the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals heard arguments regarding whether Judge Susan Nelson’s lifting of the lockout will be overturned or not.

Judge Kermit Bye encouraged both sides to continue working towards an agreement in coming days. Albert Breer of NFL.com reports Bye said the ruling will come (http://twitter.com/#!/AlbertBreer/status/76681981609521152) in “due course” and that would be one “neither side would like.” Bye reportedly encouraged the two sides to work their problems out on their own.

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/oral-arguments-end-judge-encourages-sides-to-negotiate/

NFL lawyer says lockout could last at least a year (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-lawyer-says-lockout-could-last-at-least-a-year/)

Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2011, 11:37 AM EDT

Well, the good news already is streaming out of the federal courthouse in St. Louis.

Per the Twitter accounts of multiple members of the NFL media who are getting a first-hand lesson in just how boring the practice of law can be, even when it’s at its most exciting, NFL lead appellate counsel Paul Clement told the three-judge panel that the lockout could last at least a year (http://twitter.com/#!/AlbertBreer/status/76669337175457792).

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-lawyer-says-lockout-could-last-at-least-a-year/

[jobberone]

I think the courts are doing the American public a favor forcing the two to negotiate.

[gmoney112]

Nothing is going to get accomplished if they're relying on the NFLPA and the owners to work it out themselves, the pissing match is far more important.

[Hoofbite]

I think the courts are doing the American public a favor forcing the two to negotiate.

I agree.

I think one side was hoping for good news today and all they were told to do is get back to work.

I wish the courts would just make that their final decision. You guys work it out.....we want no part of it.

[DallasEast]

I think the courts are doing the American public a favor forcing the two to negotiate.
:hammer:
I agree.

I think one side was hoping for good news today and all they were told to do is get back to work.

I wish the courts would just make that their final decision. You guys work it out.....we want no part of it.
:hammer:

[stasheroo]

I agree.

I think one side was hoping for good news today and all they were told to do is get back to work.

I wish the courts would just make that their final decision. You guys work it out.....we want no part of it.

I think that's exactly what they're saying.

And I think they've made that intent known on multiple occasions.

They've pushed the kids' back to the negotiating table every chance they could.

I just hope that it has sunk in with both parties that they'll have to do this work for themselves.

[Nightshade]

Typical legal BS. You wait for the court date to come up with bated breath and nothing really is resolved.

[Hostile]

I want to kick Paul Clement in the marbles for even suggesting that.

[Outlaw Heroes]

I want to kick Paul Clement in the marbles for even suggesting that.

He may wish to take it back, once he has a chance to reflect on what he said. The court may well hear such an ambitious request as lending credence to the notion that the players will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the lockout. I'm guessing he made the claim in response to a pointed question from the court regarding how long he feels the lockout should be allowed to remain in place. Some lawyers aren't great at thinking on their feet (though, given Clement's reputation, he should be).

[Hostile]

He may wish to take it back, once he has a chance to reflect on what he said. The court may well hear such an ambitious request as lending credence to the notion that the players will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the lockout. Doubtless he made the claim in response to a pointed question from the court regarding how long he feels the lockout should be allowed to remain in place. Some lawyers aren't great at thinking on their feet (though, given Clement's reputation, he should be).Yeah, I considered the impact it could have on the player's case too, but I want to kick him just for saying it, not for potentially helping their case.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Yeah, I considered the impact it could have on the player's case too, but I want to kick him just for saying it, not for potentially helping their case.

I know exactly why you want to kick him in the sack. I got next.

[InmanRoshi]

So reports are that the judges encouraged both sides to work out a deal ASAP and that when they make their ruling it will be one that neither party likes. Sounds like they could lift Nelson's enjoin on the lockout on grounds of NLA, but still leave the owners vulnerable to the lockout being found illegal in which they would face treble damages to the players. Thus the reason both sides have found a new found resolve to get to the negotiating table. Playtime is over and it's getting to the point where both sides are looking at real consequences of the lockout in the face.

[speedkilz88]

I want to kick Paul Clement in the marbles for even suggesting that.Sounds like he was taken out of context.

UPDATE: NFL spokesman Greg Aiello explains via e-mail that Clement was answering a specific question regarding the duration of the antitrust exemption after expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, and that Clement’s response was that the exemption lasts for a year. Unfortunately, I’d already started drinking.

[theogt]

Sounds like he was taken out of context.Not really. Sounds like that's exactly what he was stating.

If the labor exemption applies for a full year after the expiration of the CBA, then he's saying the lockout could last a year.

I'm not sure where he got the year long exemption from. I guess he pulled it from his ***.

[speedkilz88]

Not really. Sounds like that's exactly what he was stating.

If the labor exemption applies for a full year after the expiration of the CBA, then he's saying the lockout could last a year.

I'm not sure where he got the year long exemption from. I guess he pulled it from his ***.He was asked a direct question on how long the exemption applied and answered it. Was he suppose to lie?:laugh2: It was taken out of context and PFT was admitting it with the update.

[Frozen700]

He was asked a direct question on how long the exemption applied and answered it. Was he suppose to lie?:laugh2: It was taken out of context and PFT was admitting it with the update.

exactly

[Outlaw Heroes]

I'm not sure where he got the year long exemption from. I guess he pulled it from his ***.

Yep. But any determinate period of time would have been pulled from his ***. The correct answer would have been along the lines of "Your honor, that determination should be made by courts on a case by case basis, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances before them."

[Hostile]

I guess he pulled it from his ***.Sounds like it is common for the practice.

[dbair1967]

Per the Twitter accounts of multiple members of the NFL media who are getting a first-hand lesson in just how boring the practice of law can be, even when it’s at its most exciting, NFL lead appellate counsel Paul Clement told the three-judge panel that the lockout could last at least a year.

If it does, seriously doubt I'll have much interest in the NFL if/when it ever does start back up.

This whole thing is utter b/s and both sides have made themselves look like a bunch of fools.

[jterrell]

He was asked a direct question on how long the exemption applied and answered it. Was he suppose to lie?:laugh2: It was taken out of context and PFT was admitting it with the update.

not really true....
I am following like 5 media members on twitter.

His response was that the lockout should be allowed to last a full year.
This was basically in response to claiming the de-certification was a sham and that no anti-trust should apply for one year. Two until-then very sympathetic judges may have cringed at the response however.

[Fletch]

All this banter coming from the lawyers is only going to fuel the fire that will help end this lockout in the coming weeks. Progression is being made and as it was suggested, this lockout could be resolved in 2-3 weeks.

I'm fairly certain we will have a full season, and just in time for training camp. Players and owners alike cannot afford to have this lockout last an entire year. The damage that it would cause would be immense. The NFL and players cannot afford to lose the fans.

[Plumfool]

Clement seemed a bit too aggressive today.

[BraveHeartFan]

Ugh.

More crap.

On top of old crap.

I'm beyond tired of all this crap.

[speedkilz88]

Here is his comments after the hearing:


On what was accomplished today:

I think what we hope the rest of the world will take home from it is the idea that the fastest way to get football back on the field is to get extraneous antitrust law considerations out of this and get back to the bargaining table. I think that’s the real takeaway here. Beyond that, we obviously accomplished answering the judges’ questions and giving them our best thoughts about why it is that not only is it the common sense way to get football back on the field, but that’s also the answer that the laws provide. The laws provide that the way you get labor peace when you have a dispute about the terms and conditions of employment is that you don’t have the antitrust laws involved; you have negotiations between the interested parties and you get to a settlement. It’s not an antitrust settlement, it’s a labor settlement. And then you get back on the field.

On the ‘year of the business cycle’ mentioned in the court hearing:

It is very important. The argument in the court was about the length at which you can have the non-statutory labor exemption apply. The answer to that is, in our view, that it should apply for at least a year but that does not mean that you would have a lockout that would last a year or anything like that. It simply means that there would be no substantive antitrust liability for a year.

As we tried to make clear in there, we think that the lockout is actually the best way to get players back on the field. You can say, ‘Why do you think that?’ and I would say, ‘We think that because that is what all of the labor laws say.’ The way you get labor peace is you allow both sides to use the tools that the labor law gives them. That means the employees get a right to strike in certain situations; employers get to lock people out. There are other tools available to both sides. The idea is using those labor law tools will accomplish labor peace. That is not our view; that is the view that Congress took in a couple of statutes; that is the view that the Supreme Court has taken in dozens of its opinions.


http://nfllabor.com/2011/06/03/nfl-counsel-paul-clement-%E2%80%9Cthe-way-to-get-labor-peace-is-to-allow-both-sides-to-use-tools-of-labor-law%E2%80%9D/#more-5485

[theogt]

Yep. But any determinate period of time would have been pulled from his ***. The correct answer would have been along the lines of "Your honor, that determination should be made by courts on a case by case basis, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances before them."Agreed.

[CooterBrown]

Agreed.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. I can't tell you how many times I have walked out of the courtroom and said to myself..." I shoud have said......"
Oh well, you do the best you can at the moment and it is never good enough in your mind.

[theogt]

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. I can't tell you how many times I have walked out of the courtroom and said to myself..." I shoud have said......"
Oh well, you do the best you can at the moment and it is never good enough in your mind.I'm not sure he would have changed his answer given the opportunity. See the post directly above the one you quoted.

[speedkilz88]

To me it didn't come out quite how it's been painted.


On Friday, Clement attempted to head off that strategy. He was specifically asked by the judges how long the exemption should last.

“If what you’re talking about is a lockout, in particular, that’s something where there may not be a need for a court to find the endpoint of a lockout,” Clement said. “The reason I say that is two-fold. The first is that economic self-interest will take care of this, which is to say that a lockout, by its nature, doesn’t make any economic sense, unless it’s designed as a labor law tool designed to reach a collective bargaining agreement.”

Benton then followed up by asking: “So you think it lasts a year?”

“I think it lasts at least a year,” Clement said. He then went even further to explain his logic.

“I think six months, as was in the contractual agreement here, all that suggests is the absolute bare minimum. Both sides agreed in that very different context to assume the labor agreement would run its course. Upon expiration, no suit could be brought for at least six months. By my way of reckoning, that’s not the outer limit. That’s the absolute minimum because even the union was willing to agree to that time period. I would think if you’re looking for a time period, the least that you would have is one business cycle. In the context of this league, that would be at least a year,” Clement said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_bleak_nfl_lockout_picture_painted_at_appeals_ court_060311

[theogt]

To me it didn't come out quite how it's been painted.




http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_bleak_nfl_lockout_picture_painted_at_appeals_ court_060311Gross mischaracterization, truly.

Per the Twitter accounts of multiple members of the NFL media who are getting a first-hand lesson in just how boring the practice of law can be, even when it’s at its most exciting, NFL lead appellate counsel Paul Clement told the three-judge panel that the lockout could last at least a year.

Benton then followed up by asking: “So you think it lasts a year?”

“I think it lasts at least a year,” Clement said. He then went even further to explain his logic.

[speedkilz88]

Gross mischaracterization, truly.After he was asked the direct question. Of course he's going to answer that it hypothetically could go on past a year. What's a threat of a lockout if it's limited to a few months?

[theogt]

After he was asked the direct question. Of course he's going to answer that it hypothetically could go on past a year. What's a threat of a lockout if it's limited to a few months?If you're saying that it's a negative portrayal when someone accurately reports his honest reply about his client's legal arguments, then I agree.

[DEA_dad]

So reports are that the judges encouraged both sides to work out a deal ASAP and that when they make their ruling it will be one that neither party likes. Sounds like they could lift Nelson's enjoin on the lockout on grounds of NLA, but still leave the owners vulnerable to the lockout being found illegal in which they would face treble damages to the players. Thus the reason both sides have found a new found resolve to get to the negotiating table. Playtime is over and it's getting to the point where both sides are looking at real consequences of the lockout in the face.

This. It appears both sides have found the legal playground a bit rougher than expected and it appears to be getting down to brass tacks. Thus the "secret" negotiation sessions, as Hos said, this might be over soon. I bet they come to an agreement amongst themselves before someone comes to one for them.