Yahoo Sports - Decertification was failing strategy by NFLPA

[1fisher]

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way then.

That is one of my favorite lines. My high school football coach used that all the time.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

go ahead and comment. that is a weak copout if i have ever heard one..

If you are unclear about a legal concept, feel free to ask (or ask theo, pep, Cooter, Doughboy or any of the other lawyers around here). I won't be goaded into educating you.

In the meantime, I'm happy to let you continue to blow smoke (and make no mistake, referencing a few cases you've read an article or two about and passing it off as expertise is nothing other than blowing smoke) so long as you don't lead anyone else too far amiss.

 

[Hostile]

If leading means predicting the obvious and then acting coy on other predictions that never came to fruit then i will pass.

I actually have you testy. This is interesting. Like I said lets just chill.

You have me testy? Fuzzy I am always testy. I have been very subdued in recent months because my Mom's health took a serious turn, but I am back to being my same old abrasive, sarcastic, caustic self.

I cannot be conned. I was raised by a con man and no one pulls the wool over my eyes. You are highly educated and well spoken (I know, that's racist), but brah, no amount of education, training, schooling, or whatever else people want to call it replaces the real world experiences life can give you.

I have mad respect for the guys I have debated on these topics. You, peplaw06, theogt, jterrell, and adbutcher among others. There is not a single one of you guys that I do not respect. But I do not let respect blind me.

You guys are telling me things that do not jive with what I know and have experienced. The defense of the NFLPA* and in particular Demaurice Smith has been admirable, but in my opinion, and I want to stress that harder, MY OPINION, it is misguided.

You are defending a man caught in lies. Time after time after time he has lied to try and garner public support. He is a con man. I refer you again to the opening sentence of my second paragraph.

You are buying lies, but you cannot sell them to me. If that makes me "testy," then I am testy. Guilty as charged. Unharmed by the crime I have committed and unrepentant or it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you are unclear about a legal concept, feel free to ask (or ask theo, pep, Cooter, Doughboy or any of the other lawyers around here). I won't be goaded into educating you.

In the meantime, I'm happy to let you continue to blow smoke (and make no mistake, referencing a few cases you've read an article or two about and passing it off as expertise is nothing other than blowing smoke) so long as you don't lead anyone else too far amiss.

Goaded? Give me a break. If I make any factual or logical errors then point them out. Otherwise just shut up. This smarmy routine is not very compelling. If you do not like me then put me on ignore.

I am not claiming that I have expertise. I have made it very clear that I am not a lawyer and have never attempted to present myself as anything else.

What i have done is read all of the briefs submitted to the court. I have read all three rulings/opinions from the federal and circuit courts. i have read American Needle vs. the NFL, i have read White and Brown vs the NFL. Its not like the arguments are difficult to follow I have probably read about 2/3 of the CBA by now.

If i am following things wrong then so be it but defining standards and applying them is pretty simple, talk of temporal order and arising out of and of public interest certainly are not out of my scope. Following the language used to make Norris-Laguardia work both ways is easy to follow and in reality is quite logical in a literal interpretation.

I am sure that there are some points of law that I am oblivious to but your comments about 'It'll be worse than that if the 8th Circuit panel reverses the injunction, as they've hinted they'll do.' really has nothing to do about legal acumen. A toddler could have gleaned the hint and your predictions about the behavior of players after news of an event falls in the realm of psychology and not of law.

But yeah the smarmy routine is weak. As Hos said, 'either lead, follow or get out of the way.'

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have me testy. Fuzzy I am always testy. I have been very subdued in recent months because my Mom's health took a serious turn, but I am back to being my same old abrasive, sarcastic, caustic self.

I cannot be conned. I was raised by a con man and no one pulls the wool over my eyes. You are highly educated and well spoken (I know, that's racist), but brah, no amount of education, training, schooling, or whatever else people want to call it replaces the real world experiences life can give you.

I have mad respect for the guys I have debated on these topics. You, peplaw06, theogt, jterrell, and adbutcher among others. There is not a single one of you guys that I do not respect. But I do not let respect blind me.

You guys are telling me things that do not jive with what I know and have experienced. The defense of the NFLPA* and in particular Demaurice Smith has been admirable, but in my opinion, and I want to stress that harder, MY OPINION, it is misguided.

You are defending a man caught in lies. Time after time after time he has lied to try and garner public support. He is a con man. I refer you again to the opening sentence of my second paragraph.

You are buying lies, but you cannot sell them to me. If that makes me "testy," then I am testy. Guilty as charged. Unharmed by the crime I have committed and unrepentant or it.

I just do not put as much importance on Smith as you seem to. I do not think the entire thing revolves around him and I certainly do not try and sell anything that Smith says.

I for example know that he does not sign the briefs submitted in court. I also know that these are the same legal maneuvers of the guy who does sign the briefs that were used by that same man back in 1987.

TBH, I have been amazed by the pass you guys give Kessler. He is the one that wrote these same legal arguments back in 1987.

Anyway this stuff is like religion just with a pigskin. Of course we are never going to agree once we set our minds to it.

 

[DallasEast]

If the injunction is reversed and the lockout stays in place, I expect that will bring the players back to the negotiating table quite quickly and result in an owner-friendly deal. The players will have to realize at that point that the jig is up. Without the injunction on the lockout, it's doubtful they'll be able to go without pay for the years it is likely to take for the litigation to wind its way through the court system (including the likely appeals). They can always try to appeal the 8th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, but even if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, the appeal likely wouldn't be heard until 2012. We're already hearing grumblings from FAs. They'll be joined by a lot more players if it becomes clear that the litigation strategy will take years to bear fruit. As a result, I expect the players go back to the negotiating table with their tails tucked between their legs. It will be unfortunate if it comes to that, but it will likely result in a more lasting peace once the CBA gets negotiated (which could very well still take a few months after that), since it will be on terms that the owners will be happy with.

Bold--> That has always been my take as well.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bold--> That has always been my take as well.

The only problem with this little scenario is that it leaves out the trial in July concerning the case the injunction arose out of.

The CCoA rules and then its SCOTUS or bust is just wrong.

As Judge Nelson pointed out, she has declined to rule on that yet.

 

[YosemiteSam]

........ also Star Wars bad guys .............................

Because it's relative.

You had to tell him.

It was relative. :laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

I just do not put as much importance on Smith as you seem to. I do not think the entire thing revolves around him and I certainly do not try and sell anything that Smith says.

I for example know that he does not sign the briefs submitted in court. I also know that these are the same legal maneuvers of the guy who does sign the briefs that were used by that same man back in 1987.

TBH, I have been amazed by the pass you guys give Kessler. He is the one that wrote these same legal arguments back in 1987.

Anyway this stuff is like religion just with a pigskin. Of course we are never going to agree once we set our minds to it.

I haven't given Kessler a pass. I started a thread about his insane desire to end the Draft.

Is he lying to people? That is key to me Fuzzy. Smith is a bold faced liar in front of a microphone trying to drum up PR.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I haven't given Kessler a pass. I started a thread about his insane desire to end the Draft.

Is he lying to people? That is key to me Fuzzy. Smith is a bold faced liar in front of a microphone trying to drum up PR.

OK, so we shouldn't listen to him and I know YOU do not give Kessler a pass. Thats not my point. I just have difficulty understanding how you can reconcile what you know about Kessler and then still fixate on Smith.

I actually think their PR 'strategy' might be to get Smith to be the lightning rod so you guys can freak out about him and his buzzwords and ignore what they are actually doing.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I am not claiming that I have expertise. I have made it very clear that I am not a lawyer and have never attempted to present myself as anything else.

You ask a lawyer if he even knows what an injunction is, but don't pretend to have expertise yourself?

Huh. That's rich.

I don't dislike you and I'm not about to put you on ignore. You'll find that I'm not likely to get smarmy with you if you don't initiate our exchange with a provocative challenge that calls into question my knowledge when you're clearly not in a position to do so.

 

[Hostile]

OK, so we shouldn't listen to him and I know YOU do not give Kessler a pass. Thats not my point. I just have difficulty understanding how you can reconcile what you know about Kessler and then still fixate on Smith.

Because at this point I do not feel Kessler is yet damaging the NFL. Smith is.

If this continues unresolved through this season, the 2012 NFL Draft cannot happen without a CBA. The NFL can operate in 2011 without one. But they will lose the Draft until the courts finish. At that point Kessler and his fanaticism should be your public enemy #1. He will be mine.

Right now, the guy standing in the way of a deal is Smith.

I actually think their PR 'strategy' might be to get Smith to be the lightning rod so you guys can freak out about him and his buzzwords and ignore what they are actually doing.

Yeah, I've seen this thinking before. Commanders fans over on ES theorized that Joe Gibbs was purposely holding back and losing so that Dallas would get over confident and then they were going to unleash the full fury of Al Saunders 700 page playbook.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

The only problem with this little scenario is that it leaves out the trial in July concerning the case the injunction arose out of.

The CCoA rules and then its SCOTUS or bust is just wrong.

As Judge Nelson pointed out, she has declined to rule on that yet.

What are you talking about? Are you simply making things up? The antitrust hearing has not yet been scheduled. While the hearing will be expedited, it almost certainly will not take place in July. Whatever the outcome of the hearing, it will surely be appealed. And there's no reason to believe at this point that the 8th Circuit or (if it comes to it) the Supreme Court will also agree to expedite the appeal. Realistically, this issue will be tied up in court for a long time.

Please stop talking nonsense.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You ask a lawyer if he even knows what an injunction is, but don't pretend to have expertise yourself?

Huh. That's rich.

I don't dislike you and I'm not about to put you on ignore. You'll find that I'm not likely to get smarmy with you if you don't initiate our exchange with a provocative challenge that calls into question my knowledge when you're clearly not in a position to do so.

One does not have to do with the other. I am claiming that I know what an injunction is. You can feel insecure if you want to.

Again my understanding might be wrong but there is a trial in Judge Nelson's court in July which was the basis for the injunction. If she rules that their actions violate antitrust laws then the lockout is lifted or some people are going to go to jail.

Now obviously, the NFL would appeal but once again they would have to request another stay of that ruling and this time they cannot cite NLA to prohibit action by the court. That was argument that the appeals court used.

There were no precedents for that or at least no clear precedents as has been pointed out the other cases could have been construed as not having 'arisen out of a labor dispute.'

The issue of the NFL and the Sherman and Clayton Acts has been very very clear and very very specific especially in the context of labor.

I am sure that an unfavorable ruling is going to put pressure on things but you are trying to sell this notion that it is even close to over or a long process to a favorable outcome if the CCoA rules against the injunction is just wrong.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What are you talking about? Are you simply making things up? The antitrust hearing has not yet been scheduled. While the hearing will be expedited, it almost certainly will not take place in July. Whatever the outcome of the hearing, it will surely be appealed. And there's no reason to believe at this point that the 8th Circuit or (if it comes to it) the Supreme Court will also agree to expedite the appeal. Realistically, this issue will be tied up in court for a long time.

Please stop talking nonsense.

Nonsense? I thought i read that it was scheduled. I could be wrong but that just means its at a later date. Thats not nonsense and all you are doing is making vague self serving generalizations as to what the truth might be.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Nonsense? I thought i read that it was scheduled. I could be wrong but that just means its at a later date. Thats not nonsense and all you are doing is making vague self serving generalizations as to what the truth might be.

If it's been scheduled I haven't heard. I too could be wrong about that.

 

[Marktui]

If the Superior Court upholds the lockout, what do the players have left to do? Can they appeal the decision or do they concentrate on the lawsuits against the league?

 

[THUMPER]

This article sums up my feelings on the subject well. There are no angels in all of this, but I think Smith has painted himself - and those he represents - into a corner.

I just hope that when this ruling comes down, he will realize it and do the best job of negotiating that he can.

I would prefer he just took the honorable way out...

Seriously, the NFLPA should can him as soon as possible. The owners should fire Goodell as well come to think of it.

 

[Hostile]

If the Superior Court upholds the lockout, what do the players have left to do? Can they appeal the decision or do they concentrate on the lawsuits against the league?

They have the same options they do now, but just from a weakened position.

Honestly, and I really mean that, honestly, there is no good excuse for either side to wait for the courts on this. I really think it is a bad move on the part of the NFLPA*.

I think they should got back to negotiations, agree on a deal, recertify and get eh CBA in place so the league year gets under way and the season can go on.

 

[CCBoy]

Because it's relative.



It was relative. :laugh2:

A thirsting for a snicker....and the implied irony of the origin of the term naming a character as archaic, and implying degree to which a violent or intimidating nature would arise... amplified a pictoral element in comparison. For smack of insult, you three only rush to snicker, never having tasted the depth of flavor from savoring a more complex component upon the meal.

Hey, if you prefer a burn barrel replete with Ripple, go hang out. I'll just settle in within Dallas, and grab a table at El Fennix, and have some great Mexican Food.

If you prefer the approach of 'assume and rush to snicker,' that only leaves more grand cheese enchiladas for those who like a great blend.

Oh, you can purchase a sous vide supreme off the internet and try to be your own gourmet.

As to fantasy, I kind of like the The Hobbit and the development of the Trilogy as to Folk inspired legend and tales...but, grab another broken stud and toss it into your burn barrell, Buddy.

But you go, you 'huge' fans of cooking chefs....