PFT: Only four of 32 owners at mediation

[superpunk]

Typical that Ralph Wilson is not around. Does he even know there is a lockout?

Or that it is 2011?

 

[InmanRoshi]

Hopefully Jerry Richardson left his vial of "Well Poison" at the house this time.

Then again since Dooty took away the owner's war chest, he doesn't seem nearly as cocky and brash as before.

 

[TD-33]

They told Jerry the wrong place.

As I type this, Jerry is sitting alone in a banquet room at a shoney's big boy.

I lol'd

 

[bysbox1]

How many owners are needed to tell a judicially assigned mediator what their case is? I do hope Jerry Richardson asks the Judge if he needs help reading the profit and loss statements though.

In fact I definitely do not send one of the richest owners and teams out there. That's sabotaging their own case.

I agree here. Also sending Richardson is a good move, since they are a much smaller market team. They have a good cross section of owners there.

Now why the Players only have 2 there is interesting.

 

[satam55]

Hopefully Jerry Richardson left his vial of "Well Poison" at the house this time.

Then again since Dooty took away the owner's war chest, he doesn't seem nearly as cocky and brash as before.

:laugh2: I've noticed that too.

 

[dogberry]

Paul Allen is the owners banker.

 

[gimmesix]

Now why the Players only have 2 there is interesting.

They couldn't get time off from their second jobs?

 

[gimmesix]

BTW, I think it's great that Jerry Jones is not there. Someone (either here, in the media, etc.) is always looking to blame him for anything that goes wrong, so it's probably best that he doesn't give them that opportunity.

 

[Beast_from_East]

In the other thread is says the Judge told the NFL to "take these discussions seriously" and chasitised the owners for not taking part in the previous negotiations.


I wonder if 4 out of 32 is considered "satisfactory attendence" by the judge?

 

[CCBoy]

They told Jerry the wrong place.

As I type this, Jerry is sitting alone in a banquet room at a shoney's big boy.

Hope he had a breakfast plate...

 

[CCBoy]

In the other thread is says the Judge told the NFL to "take these discussions seriously" and chasitised the owners for not taking part in the previous negotiations.


I wonder if 4 out of 32 is considered "satisfactory attendence" by the judge?

No, but, Only in the eyes of on site 'barresters.'

All members of a litigation has to be there, if they are individuals filing. When they attempt for redress from a group, then representatives of that group are sufficient, if they comply with legal representation and legally sufficient accountably representative. The court would have to dictate, as well as be accountable for, specifying which of that 'total group' was required for legal sufficiency in representation.

This doesn't dilute the effectiveness of a negotiated settlement, although, and really is a NON-issue.

Intent is demonstrated in resolution, NOT attendance.

 

[Hoofbite]

How many owners could even make it there physically? Lots of these guys are older than dirt.

And you know damn well that Al Davis wouldn't have a clue where he was at so there's no use in dragging his corpse in.

 

[CCBoy]

So, instead of a challenge to applications of facts, using wisdom, a 'huckleberry' instead is wished for. Alright, I'LL BE YOUR HUCKLEBERRY.

To those who wish to see HUMOR, and implied associations, and hyperboles...but undirected in nature:


{be forewarned that one is about to enter the Kingdom of the Creatures}


Go to YouTube. Type in Timon & Pumba. Select Laughing Hyenas TV Diners.
(the 'local' barristers being the hyenas)

To those needful continuously of a Cliff Notes:

Just imagine the Wylie Coyote...as you already have your version concluded before comparison. Just recall your own memories as always.

But to the 'barristers,' just go to 'Cooked Goose,' and the Leopards are the current 'judges' in 'YOUR' types of actions....




You see, I was a soldier, and applications were always important, but not in your selectively arrogant, but splintered references.

I dealt with many and basic references and style types, but FIRST, with respect...and then approached topic and principals involved. NOT person, stereotype, and my own privilege. But even here, I use humor as the recourse...and you?

One goes to a college/unniversity to gain knowledge. Once he leaves, then applications are measure of merit. IF one is really more entitled due to insight, then he has added responsibility for enlightenment...NOT LESS.

Style miles...go figure your directions on topics. Principals of application, both in structure and applications were well learned over decades ago. But when arrogance is substituted for discussion....then enter the Kingdom of the Creatures....as ABOVE.

Now DUMB, that logic. As if a Cartoon was too far beneath one's OWN dignity.

 

[WoodysGirl]

First day of mediation includes “tough” talks, “fence-mending”

Posted by Mike Florio on April 14, 2011, 9:53 PM EDT

Thursday was the first day of court-ordered mediation, a continuation of the process that failed on March 11, resulting in decertification of the players’ union, the filing of an antitrust class-action lawsuit, and eventually a lockout.

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports, citing an unnamed source with knowledge of the situation, that the 9.5 hours of talks were “tough,” and that the two sides have a lot of “fence-mending” to do.

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...mediation-includes-tough-talks-fence-mending/

 

[CCBoy]

This part boils down to no conceptualization of loyalty to a chain of command, and learning effects of participations in process. Whether that is upon the business end of a huge corporation undertaking, or litigation aimed at the very fabric and substance of that very business itself.

Here, the owners don't mind allowing a little 'catch-up' suffering by those trying to force them to go beyond normal business related self-interest. Sure, large money is involved, but also responsibility as well. Here, the players employ sympathy and applications of neat concepts, that they are protected upon by all determinations about the industry.

The owners received a knuckle slap by the courts on negotiations with a Union involved with contract considerations. To extend similar protections here, removes sanctity of the hallowed grounds involving specifics of contracts from the UCC itself. That is very, very shaky grounds...when boiled down.

 

[CCBoy]

This part boils down to no conceptualization of loyalty to a chain of command, and learning effects of participations in process. Whether that is upon the business end of a huge corporation undertaking, or litigation aimed at the very fabric and substance of that very business itself.

Here, the owners don't mind allowing a little 'catch-up' suffering by those trying to force them to go beyond normal business related self-interest. Sure, large money is involved, but also responsibility as well. Here, the players employ sympathy and applications of neat concepts, that they are protected upon by all determinations about the industry.

The owners received a knuckle slap by the courts on negotiations with a Union involved with contract considerations. To extend similar protections here, removes sanctity of the hallowed grounds involving specifics of contracts from the UCC itself. That is very, very shaky grounds...when boiled down.

To use the 'decoder ring:'

1. This whole negotiation ordeal, evolved from an anti-trust consideration.

To effectively retain that umbrella, two things must be existent.

(1) An enforceable contract. This no longer is in effect.

(2) Realistic damages in the absence of such enforceable contract. Here, the normal man rule should be the standard. Where, with projected and offered increases in the previous levels of earning were already on the table by the owners. And that standard being well above the National figures of a real, 'average man.'

It would strain the model of an 'average man' test to further argue deprivation. And thus, reach the intended effects with anti-trust considerations. This while being void of an existing contract, which provides that very consideration.

In deed, it is smarter for the players to settle with industry advances, and not being concerned with equal playing ground to gross revenues inherent with ownership of that very industry.

Even a rocket science isn't successful in derailing the centerstone of today's business world, the UCC. *(Uniform Commercial Code)

Since this does not involve a National need or Governmental necessity, I think the Supreme Court itself, would strike down flippancy against non-contractual guarantees that ARE necessary at law to prove deficiency of owners in an anti-trust action.

The fact remains, a contract can not be implied as existing, when the litigant at cause, abolished the existence of the body that actually negotiated the original contract. Now being extinct as well.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So then what was the point of this article/post Florio....?

This has been typical of Florio's supposedly 'great coverage.'

He rips into something and soon after that he praises it.

It's the looniest bit of double talk I've ever seen. He ripped into Judge Nelson for wanting to take 2 weeks to come to a decision (she actually didn't say 2 weeks, it could've been earlier than that). Then about 1 minute later he starts saying how she made the right move by forcing them to get into mediation.

Then it was the owners were going to tank the case so they could win it in appeals...then they weren't going to do that.

Now it's 'everybody should've been there', but a few sentences later it's 'as long as somebody can negotiate a deal, then only a few need to show up.'

I think if we dealt with a person like this in our lives, we'd probably send them to an institution.






YR