Antitrust Hearing Post 2pm CDT Break Updates *Hearing Complete*

Since the hearing is done.. So am I for a few hours.

Happy reading folks. :)
 
Oh wait, so the non legal guy who this morning said a ruling would come in a couple of weeks and got raked by the legal types was right and they were wrong?
 
Hostile;3900237 said:
Oh wait, so the non legal guy who this morning said a ruling would come in a couple of weeks and got raked by the legal types was right and they were wrong?
Click to expand...
Where did this happen? I think most lawyers would realize there was a good chance a ruling wouldn't happen today.
 
nyc;3900203 said:
He is arguing the Norris/LaGuardia Act could prevent her from issuing a ruling on the injunction. If she can't rule on it, then there would be no appeal. (although if she did, they could use it as grounds for an appeal)
Click to expand...


I would expect that she is familiar with Laguardia. I would also expect that once the league got the impression she was going to rule against them, their arguements would have a two pronged focus. Victory and appeal.

The owners will eventually win any "fight to the death" even if they only use delaying tactics every step of the wayto force a settlement. This could drag on a long time and then get really ugly. We better pray somebody blinks.
 
WoodysGirl;3900236 said:
Since the hearing is done.. So am I for a few hours.

Happy reading folks. :)
Click to expand...

We appreciate your diligence WG. ...and thanks for giving us stuff to argue about! :laugh2:
 
theogt;3900225 said:
This is cool stuff. I know most people hate the labor dispute, but for lawyers who are football fans, it's fascinating.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but I have to admit, I actually have been enjoying learning all this new stuff
 
Hostile;3900260 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Then you must be misreading something. The only lawyer in that thread was stating that no one knows when the ruling will be made.
 
M'Kevon;3900277 said:
Who raked who in that thread? I feel like I'm missing something . . . :confused:
Click to expand...
Mostly Schefter got raked more than a poster. He said 2 weeks. That led to the how could he possibly know follow ups. Well, it was 2 weeks.
 
Hostile;3900293 said:
Mostly Schefter got raked more than a poster. He said 2 weeks. That led to the how could he possibly know follow ups. Well, it was 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

People did not trust an ESPN source.

Does it really matter?

I actually have a lot of respect for Nelson's approach. it tells me she gave all the signs that the NFL would lose on the injunction but encouraged them to go back to bargaining before she did so.

That tells me she is more interested in a resolution than in a side 'winning.'

If she admonishes the NFL tactics and condescension towards the court on record, I will have that much more respect.
 
Hostile;3900293 said:
Mostly Schefter got raked more than a poster. He said 2 weeks. That led to the how could he possibly know follow ups. Well, it was 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Shefter got raked for saying it was "highly unlikely" a ruling would be made today. No one even disagreed with the 2 weeks estimate. I'm not sure how to quantify "highly unlikely" but I would agree there was a less than 50% chance the lockout would be lifted today from the bench. The reality is any guess as to what the judge was going to do today was just that -- a guess.

I posted earlier that my best guess was that she'd order the parties to mediation. While she didn't order them, she strongly suggested it.
 
FuzzyLumpkins;3900309 said:
People did not trust an ESPN source.

Does it really matter?

I actually have a lot of respect for Nelson's approach. it tells me she gave all the signs that the NFL would lose on the injunction but encouraged them to go back to bargaining before she did so.

That tells me she is more interested in a resolution than in a side 'winning.'

If she admonishes the NFL tactics and condescension towards the court on record, I will have that much more respect.
Click to expand...
If you read my comments from the time the Union decertified and took this route you will find that I have never believed any of this matters.

I just do not respect DeMaurice Smith's tactics and you know why.
 
Hostile;3900316 said:
If you read my comments from the time the Union decertified and took this route you will find that I have never believed any of this matters.

I just do not respect DeMaurice Smith's tactics and you know why.
Click to expand...

Smith seems to play to win.
 
This is Beast take on the matter.................


When one side gets peppered with questions for 3 hours and the other side is sitting there playing World of Warcraft on thier Android phone, it does not take a legal scholar to know which side is going down in flames.


The judge all but agreed with the players with this remark, "you could lock them out forever, couldnt you"? Thats game, set, match folks. The judge all but said she will rule in favor of the players in two weeks and highly, stongley, and adamently suggested that the NFL negotiates a settlement in this time frame.


If no settlement, the lockout will be lifted by injunction in two weeks. The NFL knows this and is setting up appeal on the grounds that the judge does not have the authority to do this.


Thats my take, I am sure others will disagree.
 
Beast_from_East;3900332 said:
This is Beast take on the matter.................


When one side gets peppered with questions for 3 hours and the other side is sitting there playing World of Warcraft on thier Android phone, it does not take a legal scholar to know which side is going down in flames.


The judge all but agreed with the players with this remark, "you could lock them out forever, couldnt you"? Thats game, set, match folks. The judge all but said she will rule in favor of the players in two weeks and highly, stongley, and adamently suggested that the NFL negotiates a settlement in this time frame.


If no settlement, the lockout will be lifted by injunction in two weeks. The NFL knows this and is setting up appeal on the grounds that the judge does not have the authority to do this.


Thats my take, I am sure others will disagree.
Click to expand...
I see it the same way. Note that an appeal of the injunction will be reviewed on an "abuse of discretion" standard, which is a pretty tall hurdle to jump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 21,038 (members: 37, guests: 21,001)
Robots: 949

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,041
Messages
14,508,693
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top