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

[big dog cowboy]

As a fan I want football and I dont care how they get there. Your never going to convince a single one of these millionaires and billionaires are going to suffer or struggle to put food on the table.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

 

[CooterBrown]

True, the judge can rule any way she wants, but from reports coming out of the courtroom today it appears that the NFL got their arse handed to them.


The judge practically agreed with the players by making remarks such as "you could lock them our forever, couldnt you?", "it appears that the players have a strong case", "I am having a hard time with a lockout being legal after decertification".


Like I said, the NFL got their arse handed to them today. When the judge is actually making the case for the players from the freaking bench, you know it was a bad day for the NFL.

I keep reading that the judge asking so many questions of one side indicates that that side is losing. That is not necessarily true. I have seen appellate attorneys get pestered relentlessly by the court and then have the Court's decision in its written opinion track that same attorney's legal brief in agreement with his position. This is like trying to predict a jury's verdict. Its a crap shoot. Especially since none of us were there to hear all the points made by either side.

The owner's argument on the jurisdiction issue is one that they had to raise. If an attorney wants to challenge a judge's potential bias and wants a different judge to hear the case, guess who he has to ask? The judge he objects to. Any judge that is any good, or has any experience will not get mad at an attorney for raising a jurisdictional challenge. In most cases, the opposite is true. It indicates to the judge that the lawyer is competent and zealously representing his client.

Additionally, whichever side prevails, the possibility of success on an appeal cannot accurately be estimated without a careful review of the written ruling of the court. If the court rules for the players, the owners will immediately file an appeal and a motion to stay the injunction. The motion to stay would probably not succeed.

The estimated two week delay in ruling, in my opinion, hurts the players "irreparable harm" argument. It questions the necessity of "immediate" court action to prevent damage that cannot be repaired. Personally, I don't see where there could be "irreparable harm" during the offseason. Because their salaries are paid in the form of "game checks" during the season they aren't losing any money right now. They might argue that they aren't getting their roster bonuses, and can't market their services right now, but when the lockout is over, however this is settled, those matters can be rectified and thus the harm is not "irreparable".

I haven't read any of the briefs or listened to the lawyers arguments from either side. I really only posted this to say, "anybody who predicts court or jury decisions is usually right 50 percent of the time."

 

[InmanRoshi]

Personally, I don't see where there could be "irreparable harm" during the offseason. Because their salaries are paid in the form of "game checks" during the season they aren't losing any money right now. They might argue that they aren't getting their roster bonuses, and can't market their services right now, but when the lockout is over, however this is settled, those matters can be rectified and thus the harm is not "irreparable".

Under the lockout, players can't workout under team strength/conditioning staff, thus making them more prone to future injury. Currently injured players or players coming off of surgery can't rehab under team trainers and doctors, thus making it more difficult for them to get back to playing condition for the upcoming season. Players can't learn new systems and schemes under recently hired head coaches or coordinators (Rob Ryan), thus hurting their future performances and future earning potential (especially those due to reaach free agency in 2012). Draft picks can't participate in team rookie minicamps and receive team coaching or instruction, thus making it more difficult for them to earn roster spots and jobs during training camps.

Personally, it's hard for me to see how ownership can claim an offseason lockout doesn't harm players after they've been increasingly pressuring the players to participate in offseason team events at team facilities under team supervision working with team staff on almost a year round basis for the previous 15+ offseasons before. I don't think this has been lost on the NFL ownership either, which is why Goodell is being such a threatening hardarse on teams/coaches potentially caught interacting with or instructing the players during the lockout. Who needs the NFLPA lawyers to tell you that it's imperative that business return to normal as fast as possible, when the ownership's own employees are inadvertently making the case for them?

 

[5Stars]

I keep reading that the judge asking so many questions of one side indicates that that side is losing. That is not necessarily true. I have seen appellate attorneys get pestered relentlessly by the court and then have the Court's decision in its written opinion track that same attorney's legal brief in agreement with his position. This is like trying to predict a jury's verdict. Its a crap shoot. Especially since none of us were there to hear all the points made by either side.

The owner's argument on the jurisdiction issue is one that they had to raise. If an attorney wants to challenge a judge's potential bias and wants a different judge to hear the case, guess who he has to ask? The judge he objects to. Any judge that is any good, or has any experience will not get mad at an attorney for raising a jurisdictional challenge. In most cases, the opposite is true. It indicates to the judge that the lawyer is competent and zealously representing his client.

Additionally, whichever side prevails, the possibility of success on an appeal cannot accurately be estimated without a careful review of the written ruling of the court. If the court rules for the players, the owners will immediately file an appeal and a motion to stay the injunction. The motion to stay would probably not succeed.

The estimated two week delay in ruling, in my opinion, hurts the players "irreparable harm" argument. It questions the necessity of "immediate" court action to prevent damage that cannot be repaired. Personally, I don't see where there could be "irreparable harm" during the offseason. Because their salaries are paid in the form of "game checks" during the season they aren't losing any money right now. They might argue that they aren't getting their roster bonuses, and can't market their services right now, but when the lockout is over, however this is settled, those matters can be rectified and thus the harm is not "irreparable".

I haven't read any of the briefs or listened to the lawyers arguments from either side. I really only posted this to say, "anybody who predicts court or jury decisions is usually right 50 percent of the time."

This is a good post.

The words that the NFLPA* use, the "irreparable harm" does not sit right with me.

What "irreparable harm" are most of these players going to suffer? Hell, I suffer irreparable harm every time I read that some drafted player gets a 10 million guaranteed paycheck!

And, even the bottom feeders of the players make more money than most of us will ever see.

I know, I know, they put their bodies on the line and use that excuse. But, if you don't play football and don't get paid, what is the harm? Your body is healing, and you sure as hell don't have to eat baloney like most of us.

 

[Anjinsan]

This is cool stuff. I know most people hate the labor dispute, but for lawyers who are football fans, it's fascinating.

If your a lawyer, whats the consensus on today amongst you and your peers?

 

[5Stars]

If your a lawyer, whats the consensus on today amongst you and your peers?

I'm not going to answer for theogt....

(but he and his peers are going yes! mo money mo money mo money for us lawyers)

 

[DCDave]

I keep reading that the judge asking so many questions of one side indicates that that side is losing. That is not necessarily true.

I agree that its not necessarily true, but its probably true. But more than the relative division of questions, the most significant -- and striking -- statement made by the judge was on the question of irreparable harm. She is reported as having said that on irreparable harm, it "appears the players have strong case."

To me, as a lawyer that's practiced before a number of federal district judges, and clerked for one before that, this is a HUGE tell. If a judge isn't convinced that you are right on the merits, the judge isn't going to be of the mind that denying a preliminary injunction will "harm" you at all, much less "irreparably." The fact that she believes the players have made a "strong" showing on irreparable harm means, to my mind, that she believes both that the substantive claims have merit and that the preliminary injunction is necessary. As someone who has litigated preliminary injunctions as a plaintiff in federal court, if I heard a federal judge say what Judge Nelson said, I'd know it was time for me to sit down. No further advocacy is necessary.

The estimated two week delay in ruling, in my opinion, hurts the players "irreparable harm" argument. It questions the necessity of "immediate" court action to prevent damage that cannot be repaired. Personally, I don't see where there could be "irreparable harm" during the offseason. Because their salaries are paid in the form of "game checks" during the season they aren't losing any money right now.

Not really. The players aren't arguing that they will be harmed today or tomorrow. After all, they sought a preliminary injunction but not a temporary restraining order (an ex parte order usually entered, if merited, on the day its sought), despite the fact that the two are frequently sought together. No, I think she's simply giving the NFL a chance to work something out before she brings down the hammer. Believe it or not, most judges don't want to be the central figure in resolving a high profile business dispute like this. They'd much prefer the parties work it out on their own. But if forced to decide, they will. Much in the way that Judge Doty waited a couple of weeks before handing down his decision that ripped the NFL a new one on the lockout payments. I could be wrong, but I suspect Judge Nelson could have ruled today if she wanted to. She's giving the NFL a chance. If they decide not to take it, and don't resolve this soon, she will drop the hammer.

I haven't read any of the briefs or listened to the lawyers arguments from either side. I really only posted this to say, "anybody who predicts court or jury decisions is usually right 50 percent of the time."

If anybody is offering even money on the NFL at this point, I'll take some of that action...

 

[theogt]

If your a lawyer, whats the consensus on today amongst you and your peers?

I think all the lawyers on this board have come to basically the same conclusions.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I think all the lawyers on this board have come to basically the same conclusions.

There are two schools of thought I've gathered from all my legally savvy people.

The first is that this was an inevitability and the others seem to think this was an anomaly.

Not in the sense that neither side is folding, in regard to how both sides could've seen this coming for years, and how they've both gone about seeking 'middle-ground.'

I personally feel like both sides know where they are going to settle, and the negotiations are merely prototypical business as usual dealings, however the fact that so many different 'talking points' getting brought up - makes me presume that all sides (including heavily invested 3rd parties) are going to profit from this 'dispute'. Makes the consumer want the brand that much more.

 

[BrassCowboy]

If the injunction is granted, the players will return to VR.

its that simple.

yeah, because what do they have to lose, they know in today's society, they can and obviously will get whatever they want

for the guys who write the checks, well who are they anyways...... they should know better.....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yeah, because what do they have to lose, they know in today's society, they can and obviously will get whatever they want

for the guys who write the checks, well who are they anyways...... they should know better.....

less crying and more substance please.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Under the lockout, players can't workout under team strength/conditioning staff, thus making them more prone to future injury. Currently injured players or players coming off of surgery can't rehab under team trainers and doctors, thus making it more difficult for them to get back to playing condition for the upcoming season. Players can't learn new systems and schemes under recently hired head coaches or coordinators (Rob Ryan), thus hurting their future performances and future earning potential (especially those due to reaach free agency in 2012). Draft picks can't participate in team rookie minicamps and receive team coaching or instruction, thus making it more difficult for them to earn roster spots and jobs during training camps.

Personally, it's hard for me to see how ownership can claim an offseason lockout doesn't harm players after they've been increasingly pressuring the players to participate in offseason team events at team facilities under team supervision working with team staff on almost a year round basis for the previous 15+ offseasons before. I don't think this has been lost on the NFL ownership either, which is why Goodell is being such a threatening hardarse on teams/coaches potentially caught interacting with or instructing the players during the lockout. Who needs the NFLPA lawyers to tell you that it's imperative that business return to normal as fast as possible, when the ownership's own employees are inadvertently making the case for them?

this just sounds like lawyer bs

 

[BrassCowboy]

less crying and more substance please.

thought it was pretty clear....

players are using the legal issues of the NFL being a monopoly and the issues of antitrust laws against the NFL

I understand the player's lawyers are vying for every position they can to hold over the NFL to force them to concede more to the players, but what do the owners have?

really, what do they have to make the players negotiate in good faith? Why would the players concede even a dime now? It is offseason and now they will be paid. What do they have to lose to just sit it out? They know the NFL owners cannot afford to lose football games.

players are holding all the cards so for those that think this thing will be hammered out soon now if the injunction is lifted, it wont be on the pllayers account

 

[Anjinsan]

I agree that its not necessarily true, but its probably true. But more than the relative division of questions, the most significant -- and striking -- statement made by the judge was on the question of irreparable harm. She is reported as having said that on irreparable harm, it "appears the players have strong case."

To me, as a lawyer that's practiced before a number of federal district judges, and clerked for one before that, this is a HUGE tell. If a judge isn't convinced that you are right on the merits, the judge isn't going to be of the mind that denying a preliminary injunction will "harm" you at all, much less "irreparably." The fact that she believes the players have made a "strong" showing on irreparable harm means, to my mind, that she believes both that the substantive claims have merit and that the preliminary injunction is necessary. As someone who has litigated preliminary injunctions as a plaintiff in federal court, if I heard a federal judge say what Judge Nelson said, I'd know it was time for me to sit down. No further advocacy is necessary.





Not really. The players aren't arguing that they will be harmed today or tomorrow. After all, they sought a preliminary injunction but not a temporary restraining order (an ex parte order usually entered, if merited, on the day its sought), despite the fact that the two are frequently sought together. No, I think she's simply giving the NFL a chance to work something out before she brings down the hammer. Believe it or not, most judges don't want to be the central figure in resolving a high profile business dispute like this. They'd much prefer the parties work it out on their own. But if forced to decide, they will. Much in the way that Judge Doty waited a couple of weeks before handing down his decision that ripped the NFL a new one on the lockout payments. I could be wrong, but I suspect Judge Nelson could have ruled today if she wanted to. She's giving the NFL a chance. If they decide not to take it, and don't resolve this soon, she will drop the hammer.



If anybody is offering even money on the NFL at this point, I'll take some of that action...

Excellent. Thanks a bunch for your input. Sounds like we may have football sooner than later.

 

[LongSnapper]

This sounds more like positioning for an appeal rather than argueing for a judgement.

That appears to be the strategy....... Push Mrs Nelson over the line perhaps

 

[InmanRoshi]

this just sounds like lawyer bs

I'll be sure to tell Mike Woicik that his offseason strength and conditioning program is all just a bunch of "lawyer BS", and skipping it doesn't really hurt the players.

I'll also be sure to remind people the next time a player skips offseason team workouts, minicamps and training camps in a contract dispute that practice and preperation is just a bunch of "lawyer BS" that doesn't really effect anything.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I agree that its not necessarily true, but its probably true. But more than the relative division of questions, the most significant -- and striking -- statement made by the judge was on the question of irreparable harm. She is reported as having said that on irreparable harm, it "appears the players have strong case."

I'd also say her comment urging the two sides to hurry up and come to an agreement between themselves because "a lot of folks are impacted" seems to indicate she's not seeing things from the owner's point of view that a prolonged work stoppage is no big whoop.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'll be sure to tell Mike Woicik that his offseason strength and conditioning program is all just a bunch of "lawyer BS", and skipping it doesn't really hurt the players.

I'll also be sure to remind people the next time a player skips offseason team workouts, minicamps and training camps in a contract dispute that practice and preperation is just a bunch of "lawyer BS" that doesn't really effect anything.

There's a difference between not attending workouts or minicamps that are being held and not holding workouts or minicamps at all. If all of the teams are prohibited from holding workouts, then -- all other things being equal -- the effect is the same on every team. If everyone is working out or attending minicamp except you, then you are falling behind.

If players are "irreparably harmed" by missing workouts and minicamps in March and April, should they be made mandatory in the next CBA?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I understand the player's lawyers are vying for every position they can to hold over the NFL to force them to concede more to the players, but what do the owners have?

Again.. the players arn't the ones asking for more here. Some of us are having a difficult time remembering that.

 

[theogt]

There's a difference between not attending workouts or minicamps that are being held and not holding workouts or minicamps at all. If all of the teams are prohibited from holding workouts, then -- all other things being equal -- the effect is the same on every team. If everyone is working out or attending minicamp except you, then you are falling behind.

I don't think the point that it harms everyone equally will fly with the judge.

If players are "irreparably harmed" by missing workouts and minicamps in March and April, should they be made mandatory in the next CBA?

I don't see why it would be. It's one thing to say that I'm harmed by being disallowed from doing something I choose and another thing to force me to do it.