Litigation or Negotiation

[Dodger]

Negotiation, because I think that way it'll end sooner...

Ditto.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Litigation.

I want it to be clear and concise, even if it takes longer.
No gray areas, no bull.

If the owners are wrong, so be it, if the players are wrong as well.

To me as an owner you have the right to employ who you want and if they sign a contract...that is on them. As a player you should be always looking for the best possible deal from your employer.

 

[Joe Realist]

Who needs the animal? Put me in the cage with them. I'll hurt them both in very amusing ways.

you will blog them to death?

 

[LandryFan]

At this point, I'm for litigation only because a court ruling(s) will hopefully settle the mess once and for all. If it's negotiated now, it'll eventually go to litigation somewhere down the line, anyway.

 

[THUMPER]

you will blog them to death?

With a blunt keyboard.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Trust me, when it comes to contract disputes (which this sorta is), the last thing anybody wants is for some judge to make the final decision.


Negotiation is always the best outcome.

 

[CooterBrown]

At this point, I'm for litigation only because a court ruling(s) will hopefully settle the mess once and for all. If it's negotiated now, it'll eventually go to litigation somewhere down the line, anyway.

yep. I voted litigation for the same reason. Even if they reach an agreement, at this point, one side or the other won't be happy and that will carry over to the next contract expiration. Just like it did after the last contract. It's time to see who has the upper hand. Once that is clearly established, these strikes and/or lockouts should come to an end and we can all focus on the game instead of the law.

 

[CCBoy]

This is one time when the environment will dictate for the owners. I say that the upcoming litigation sets the parameters on issue and will force parameters for conduct upon the owners. This will send them back to negotiations, as that is what has to occur at some point.

I don't think owners want to come clean and become a protect and benevolent element. They will have to become practical after the court kicks them for misconduct that owners are trying to get away with by shifting protective veils for operation. Curtain one, two, or three won't help with punitive damages as well as legal remedies that shortly be provided by court action.

Myself, I feel they can cry through appeals all they wish, but if need for expenses continue to accumulate for themselves as they would then project, then they will defeat any 'associated' reasons that would by default fall their way.

The National Economy triggered the rider elements adjoined by the previous CBA under Eugene Upshaw. But now, those tacked own elements the owners were hoping would give labor exemptions ground, are being beaten up by punitive acts involving contract ignoring and removing an exemption status under anti-trust and previous rulings.

 

[zrinkill]

I hate lawyers- who would be the only ones making money if it makes it to court. So yes get it done without those shysters.

Agreed.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Not sure why anyone would *want* this to go to litigation. Though, if it does, CRUSH the players!

 

[baj1dallas]

I'm curious to know which way you'd prefer to see this lockout/strike/fan screwjob end?

Do you want it to be settled in court? Or do you want the players and owners to get back to negotiations and fix it before they have to go to court?

Which one would happen soonest?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I want an option C...whichever gets it done faster.

<sits back on fence and throws poo on both sides> :

On a side note it looks like we have already had negotiation (to a degree) and now we are headed towards litigation. Maybe litigation will take a backseat to negotiation.

 

[jterrell]

I'd prefer negotiation but both sides have chosen litigation. Like two kids fighting the parent ultimately will have to step in and spank someone while the other smirks.