U.S. Court of Appeals overturns Judge Doty on 2012 collusion case

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
I never claimed a vast amount of knowledge. I am not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be one. Quite the contrary. If i gave you that impression that is on you and not me.

Second I never said you were certainly wrong. Judge Doty did after all throw the case out before. I pointed it out to you how before and you just repeating it is not going to make it so. What I do do is point out why what you say is illogical, not germane or the like. Our conversation has no bearing on the outcome in court.

You also do not understand the notion of mutual exclusivity. Just because it was a negotiation does not preclude it from also being duress. I fail to see how a take it or leave it offer two days before FA is set to begin is not duress.

I get it, you are just a blowhard that feels the need to put people down if they don't rise up to your perceived level of debate.

Deals have deadlines all the time. I don't see how 2 days before an artificial deadline(it could easily be delayed with no consequence) is some kind of apocalyptic timeline.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
@FuzzyLumpkins

After the last comment...



I began back-tracking and reading over the last page or so... do you know what's going on with this case?

A lot of times it seems like you do, but it also seems like you may be confused.

I think that you do not understand the difference between a smoking gun and suspicion. All you are doing here is making a list. For all your bookkeeping there is nary an argument.

You say that you are not speaking for them and then you do just that. You characterize there actions again. "they trusted the NFL enough?" It's really all you ever do.

If you think that if the NFL had a smoking gun of Mara flat out revealing collusion that they would have signed that particular deal then you are foolling yourself.

Before they signed anything they went to an arbitrator which again was not binding. We don't know what went on in that hearingor what case was made or not made but if the owners lied in there which we both know they lied elsewhere on the same matter then they are have issues because it shows a clear divergence. Because after all what did the NFLPA do first? It wasn't 'trust the NFLPA enough.'
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
I get it, you are just a blowhard that feels the need to put people down if they don't rise up to your perceived level of debate.

Deals have deadlines all the time. I don't see how 2 days before an artificial deadline(it could easily be delayed with no consequence) is some kind of apocalyptic timeline.

This is cute. You whine about insults then call me a blowhard. Hypocrite much?

You think that two days before the signing period the year after the lockout was done on good faith? Nice. i don't insult you I just write in a tone denoting my level of respect.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
What was the outcome of Brown?

SCOTUS said:
Petitioners also say that irrespective of how the labor exemption applies elsewhere to multiemployer collective bargaining, professional sports is "special." We can understand how professional sports may be special in terms of, say, interest, excitement, or concern. But we do not understand how they are special in respect to labor law's antitrust exemption. We concede that the clubs that make up a professional sports league are not completely independent economic competitors, as they depend upon a degree of cooperation for economic survival. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 101-102 (1984); App. 110-115 (declaration of NFL Commissioner). In the present context, however, that circumstance makes the league more like a single bargaining employer, which analogy seems irrelevant to the legal issue before us.

We also concede that football players often have special individual talents, and, unlike many unionized workers, they often negotiate their pay individually with their employers. See post, at 5 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But this characteristic seems simply a feature, like so many others, that might give employees (or employers) more (or less) bargaining power, that might lead some (or all) of them to favor a particular kind of bargaining, or that might lead to certain demands at the bargaining table. We do not see how it could make a critical legal difference in determining the underlying framework in which bargaining is to take place. See generally Jacobs & Winter, Antitrust Principles and Collective Bargaining by Athletes: Of Superstars in Peonage, 81 Yale L. J. 1 (1971). Indeed, it would be odd to fashion an antitrust exemption that gave additional advantages to professional football players (by virtue of their superior bargaining power) that transport workers, coal miners, or meat packers would not enjoy.

For these reasons, we hold that the implicit ("nonstatutory") antitrust exemption applies to the employer conduct at issue here. That conduct took place during and immediately after a collective bargaining negotiation. It grew out of, and was directly related to, the lawful operation of the bargaining process. It involved a matter that the parties were required to negotiate collectively. And it concerned only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
I get what you are saying Hoof. The Brown case was in the 90s what i was thinking of was Mackey vs NFL.
 

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,017
Reaction score
22,608
Fuzzy, I see there is no end in attempting to clarify a view already stated...sorry for the problems with merely opining on a previous statement or status recorded already.
 

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,699
Reaction score
12,658
I think that you do not understand the difference between a smoking gun and suspicion. All you are doing here is making a list. For all your bookkeeping there is nary an argument.

You say that you are not speaking for them and then you do just that. You characterize there actions again. "they trusted the NFL enough?" It's really all you ever do.

If you think that if the NFL had a smoking gun of Mara flat out revealing collusion that they would have signed that particular deal then you are foolling yourself.

Before they signed anything they went to an arbitrator which again was not binding. We don't know what went on in that hearingor what case was made or not made but if the owners lied in there which we both know they lied elsewhere on the same matter then they are have issues because it shows a clear divergence. Because after all what did the NFLPA do first? It wasn't 'trust the NFLPA enough.'

K. Hope you're having a nice 4th of July weekend.
 
Top