Latest on the Lockout!

It really sounds like she'd much rather have them work this out then have even the injunction decided in court. For the lawyers out there, if they are close to striking a deal would the judge delay a ruling to give the sides time to work it out? I would guess so but have little experience with the courts.

Best to use PFF for any sort of legal analysis on the court proceedings.

The order from Judge Susan Nelson setting mediation, a copy of which we have obtained, requires the lawyers and “a party representative having full authority” to attend.

This means that the named parties must be there or they must be represented by someone who has the ability to make binding decisions without any further phone calls or consultation.

It’s one of the most commonly violated aspects of court-ordered mediation, especially when corporate entities are involved. When, for example, a large company is sued, the representative at mediation has “full authority” to settle the case — but only on the terms that his or her superiors have authorized settlement. If the representative needs to make a call in order to get greater authority, then the person who is called is the person who should have been the representative.

The reality is that judges rarely enforce this rule, even when it’s obvious that, for example, the local manager of a big-box retail store with thousands of locations throughout the world surely does not have the ability to bind the corporation to a seven-figure settlement. Most judges simply don’t want to get their hands dirty in such matters — and many of those judges realize that, short of dragging the board of directors to the courthouse, a person with full authority never will actually be attending.

In this case, look for the court to be more demanding, and to require the involvement of a representative for all parties (the 10 current players, the 32 teams, and the league) who has the ability to negotiate and, ultimately, to make decisions without calling anyone else. If the folks with the juice aren’t in the room, then no progress can be made. And any party that fails to comply with this critical aspect of Judge Nelson’s order should be sanctioned and/or found to be in contempt of court.

She's getting tough.

Someone said it earlier on Twitter...she can make them negotiate, she can't make them agree.

But what she can damn well try and do, is make it hard to negotiate without coming to agreement.

If they can't agree, they can't agree. But the conditions are there so that if they can, it is done. that's all she can do.

And then one side will file an appeal....

This is a common tactic judges use when they want a case settled. The idea is that a single individual can be isolated and worn down during a long mediation session, to the point that the "decision maker" might give in on a point that would not be conceded if the person could consult outside chambers. This strong-arm tactic is unfair because most organizations after a certain level of size or complexity are not set up to have a single decision maker. They are governed by boards, and dissent and discussion are part of the decision-making process. While this slows things down, it also prevents ill-considered decisions. If the board is not comfortable with delegating the decision-making power to a single individual but is still willing to mediate in good faith, they could call the judge's bluff and say that the best they can do is delegate to a committee, reach a tentative agreement, and go back to the board with a recommendation on an expedited basis. The judge, of course, can decide to hurt your side if you don't play ball; it's a fine line to walk.

"cdz12250 wrote:

This is a common tactic judges use when they want a case settled. The idea is that a single individual can be isolated and worn down during a long mediation session, to the point that the "decision maker" might give in on a point that would not be conceded if the person could consult outside chambers. This strong-arm tactic is unfair because most organizations after a certain level of size or complexity are not set up to have a single decision maker. They are governed by boards, and dissent and discussion are part of the decision-making process. While this slows things down, it also prevents ill-considered decisions. If the board is not comfortable with delegating the decision-making power to a single individual but is still willing to mediate in good faith, they could call the judge's bluff and say that the best they can do is delegate to a committee, reach a tentative agreement, and go back to the board with a recommendation on an expedited basis. The judge, of course, can decide to hurt your side if you don't play ball; it's a fine line to walk.

While true, you’re overlooking the fact that if an agreement isn’t reached, the judge will issue her own ruling regardless of what happens in mediation.

All mediations need to include the parties or a rep with full authority, even in state court.

Making a phone call isn't a problem, saying that you can't make a decision without talking to 10 other people is.
Goodell will need to be there at some point with enough owners to make a deal. I imagine De Smith has something close to full authority.

Nelson can't make them settle but she can apply lots of pressure. She's under no pressure or authority to rule any time soon. Maybe she decides to rule in August. Or next year.

"schmolioot wrote:

Nelson can't make them settle but she can apply lots of pressure. She's under no pressure or authority to rule any time soon. Maybe she decides to rule in August. Or next year.

She’s already said she’s going to issue a ruling sooner rather than later, and that what happens in mediation has no influence on her ruling.

This chick's ready for some football!

Sorry judge, I'll leave now. :shifty:

Goodell and some owners will be at mediation tomorrow.

I think I like this broad.

Get 'er done!

I want the players to get every cent possible. People complain about their crazy salaries; however, one severely overlooked point is the fact that many of these players give back to their communities etc MUCH more than your typical upper class, greedy millionaires. There are sports leagues, facilities, childrens' organizations, etc across the country that wouldn't exist if it weren't for these guys.

Heck, similarly paid A-list movie stars probably give back less while subjecting themselves to no future potential physical and/or mental handicaps (unless you're Cuba Gooding Junior and your career takes a dive straight to video, b/c that could be damaging).

"ToddsPhins wrote:

I want the players to get every cent possible. People complain about their crazy salaries; however, one severely overlooked point is the fact that many of these players give back to their communities etc MUCH more than your typical upper class, greedy millionaires. There are sports leagues, facilities, childrens' organizations, etc across the country that wouldn't exist if it weren't for these guys.

Heck, similarly paid A-list movie stars probably give back less while subjecting themselves to no future potential physical and/or mental handicaps (unless you're Cuba Gooding Junior and your career takes a dive straight to video, b/c that could be damaging).

So you have no problem with labor cost, sooner rather than later or ever, bringing down the sport we love to watch? That a normal guy won't be able to afford to take his family to see their favorite team or even watch them save when they are on regular TV?

"gafinfan wrote:

So you have no problem with labor cost, sooner rather than later or ever, bringing down the sport we love to watch? That a normal guy won't be able to afford to take his family to see their favorite team or even watch them save when they are on regular TV?

You're taking it too literally. lol. I didn't say I want them getting every cent of my or our money, but rather I'd prefer to see more in their pockets instead of the owners.

"ToddsPhins wrote:

You're taking it too literally. lol. I didn't say I want them getting every cent of my or our money, but rather I'd prefer to see more in their pockets instead of the owners.

If there isn't balance its not a good situation for fans.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

"gafinfan wrote:

So you have no problem with labor cost, sooner rather than later or ever, bringing down the sport we love to watch? That a normal guy won't be able to afford to take his family to see their favorite team or even watch them save when they are on regular TV?

The first professional football game I attended was a preseason in 1970. Cost me $6.50! My how times have changed.

"Themole wrote:

The first professional football game I attended was a preseason in 1970. Cost me $6.50! My how times have changed.

The 1st game we went to as a family was the home opener in 1967 against the Denver Broncos. Bob Griese was the new QB sensation and we got a discount for 4 tickets for $ 5 a piece at Kwik-Check (later bought by Winn-Dixie) over on 8th St & 70th Ave.

I'd like to see the players play for free. :)

"Ozzy wrote:

I'd like to see the players play for free. :)

shut up..... antagonizer.

lol.

Well, the ones who would hit the field would be playing for the love of the game. Not to play a few years to get that one big contract then tank it.

Yeah, I was kidding but ....

and it's antagonist :)

That's the difference between mediation and arbitration. Mediation you have a negotiator, where as arbitration is a forced ruling

"Ozzy wrote:

Well, the ones who would hit the field would be playing for the love of the game. Not to play a few years to get that one big contract then tank it.

Yeah, I was kidding but ....

and it's antagonist :)

I was wondering why there was a red line under the word when I typed it.

Wait........ now you're just antagonizing me on the word antagonizer. Besides, who anointed the person "boss" who made up the word in the first place?! Antagonizer is clearly a better choice. pfft