Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

AcresHomesTexan

AcresHomesTexan

No Longer Arlington: Escaped From Jerry's World
Staff member
She declines to stay her ruling depending on appeal.

Link shortly...NFL network break in
 
Per Chris Mortensen on Twitter

Filed to ESPN: Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson has ruled for players, lifting lockout, per sources. Owners will seek immediate stay.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson has granted NFL players their motion for a preliminary injunction, therefore lifting the lockout that was imposed by owners on March 11, according to league and union sources.

The decision is expected to be posted publicly no later than 6 p.m. ET., sources said.

Neither side had an official reaction, pending the official posting by Judge Nelson but the NFL is expected to immediately request a stay of the ruling until it can make its arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which is headquartered in St. Louis but also has an office in St. Paul.
Click to expand...
 
Still trying to decipher all of this, do we have free agency right now or are we going to have to wait another week for the appeals court?
 
Jackie Chiles said:
Still trying to decipher all of this, do we have free agency right now or are we going to have to wait another week for the appeals court?
Click to expand...

Wait for the court of appeals to rule whether a stay should or should not be granted. This part ususally happens quickly because the judge would feel that a stay would harm the players in an unfair way.

According to those who know the legal process more than me, not granting the stay would mean there is football with the previous rules in place. From the quick analysis that I have heard, stay or no should happen within a calendar week.
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
Wait for the court of appeals to rule whether a stay should or should not be granted. This part ususally happens quickly because the judge would feel that a stay would harm the players in an unfair way.

According to those who know the legal process more than me, not granting the stay would mean there is football with the previous rules in place. From the quick analysis that I have heard, stay or no should happen within a calendar week.
Click to expand...
Free agency and drafts would assume under the orevious agreement. This is good news for all teams right now.
 
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
 
PapaL said:
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
Click to expand...
We might have to wait for the final ruling but I am not sure.
 
PapaL said:
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
Click to expand...
Nope, not until the NFL tells them they can. They were prohibited BEFORE the lockout and suits ever happened.
 
PapaL said:
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
Click to expand...

That would actually tickle me a little bit...

The owners are planning on appealing the lock-out ruling, but they are going to sign off on a FA contract in the meanwhile?

"I'm appealing to basically have all football operations ceased.....buuuut let me sign you real quick"
 
k sorry for being uneducated in this situation.... so if a stay is granted, that means lockout will happen?

and if it is not granted that means we have football again?
 
This week could be pretty nuts. Apparently the 8th Circuit is going to rule on the stay Friday. Also known as the 2nd round of the draft.
 
PapaL said:
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

I would imagine that the agents and players would be hesitant to sign a deal that might be challenged later on (by either the player/agent OR the ownership of the team).

Sign a deal now, in this "grace period," and I think it's possible that the risk is a future unhappiness on either side or maybe both sides...especially if things get whacky and NEW rules are somehow adopted that impact the terms of a deal done prior to the new rules being settled upon.

And there stands a good chance the appeals court could side with the owners.

I don't think this thing is moving along. It just has had a stop at a train station along the way to the final end destination: A new deal that has to be signed by both sides.

Just my 2 cents as I sit here and think about everything.
 
disaacks3 said:
Nope, not until the NFL tells them they can. They were prohibited BEFORE the lockout and suits ever happened.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm crazy, diff thread I'm aware, but I swear there was time before...no wait...FA can't sign until a certain after a certain date. Then again if that date was after the SB...ah hell I don't know.
 
Rey said:
That would actually tickle me a little bit...

The owners are planning on appealing the lock-out ruling, but they are going to sign off on a FA contract in the meanwhile?

"I'm appealing to basically have all football operations ceased.....buuuut let me sign you real quick"
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be all time awesome? I can see Jerry or Darth Vader in OAK pulling this move. At the end of the day it is a business and screw the opposition right? :ahhaha:
 
hot pickle said:
k sorry for being uneducated in this situation.... so if a stay is granted, that means lockout will happen?

and if it is not granted that means we have football again?
Click to expand...
A stay menas that the lockout remains during the appeals process, if the is no stay then the NFL will have to operate as normal as possible while the court figure out the legal stuff.
 
PFT stays up with the details in a series of pieces, and puts forth theories and answers to some question that have been asked here.

Report: Judge Nelson lifts lockout

As expected, a ruling on the players’ motion to lift the lockout came Monday.

As expected, the ruling favors the players.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Judge Nelson has issued a ruling in favor of the players. The NFL reportedly will seek an immediate stay of the implementation of the decision.

If the stay is granted, the lockout would not be lifted until, at the earliest, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling in the case. The players surely would request expedited consideration of the appeal.

If Judge Nelson refuses to grant the stay, the NFL surely would seek a stay from the appeals court.

If neither court gives the league the stay, the doors will be forced open, soon.

In the short term, it’s good news for the fans. If the ruling stands, the season will occur as scheduled. And maybe folks will even give a crap about the draft.

Meanwhile, if the ruling stands the NFL will at some point have to come up with rules for 2011 regarding free agency and the salary cap, if any. Those rules likely would then be challenged by the players as antitrust violations.
All that said, there could be important exceptions and details and nuances in Judge Nelson’s written ruling. We’re in the process of getting our hands on it. We’ll then break it all down in order to best understand why the decision was reached, whether it will be susceptible to appeal, and what it all means to you (and us), the fans of football.
Click to expand...

League will seek a stay of the ruling, and will appeal it

The NFL has responded to the not-surprising-but-still-a-little-jarring decision from Judge Susan Nelson to lift the lockout.

“We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the league says in a statement. “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”

On that last point, the league is right. The reality, however, is that the players now have a lot more leverage, given that (if the ruling stands) negotiations will occur while the players are playing football and getting paid to do so.

If Judge Nelson denies to stay the lifting of the lockout, the league presumably will make the same request of the appeals court.
Click to expand...


Judge Nelson sticks up for the fans

At a time when the NFL and the players have said that they care about the fans when in reality they don’t (more accurately, they don’t care enough about the fans to set aside greed and work out the labor dispute), Judge Susan Nelson has acknowledged the impact of the work stoppage on the fans in ending it.

The factors for granting a “preliminary injunction” blocking the lockout include the presence of irreparable harm on the part of the players, a likelihood of success at trial on the legal and factual issues presented by the case, a balancing of the hardships between the players and the owners, and the public interest.

As to the last factor, Judge Nelson recognized that the public needs its football.

“[T]he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” Judge Nelson writes at page 87 of her 89-page written ruling. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football - who have a strong investment in the 2011 season - is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

That’s possibly the most accurate paragraph written by anyone in any capacity regarding this mess - especially since someone finally doing something to advance interests of the fans.
Click to expand...

NFL won’t start league year without chance to seek a stay

Judge Susan Nelson has issued an order ending the lockout, without any limitation or delay. The league plans to seek a stay of the ruling.

Until the stay is obtained, the lockout is, in theory, over.

So what if NFL players decide to report to their team facilities on Tuesday for offseason strength and conditioning? Any team that refuses to let the players inside possibly will be in violation of Judge Nelson’s order.

That’s precisely what could happen. “We do not intend to start the league year until we have had an opportunity to seek a stay,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells PFT via e-mail.

In other words, if they show up, they’re not getting in.

It seems like a reasonable position. But it’s a calculated risk. The lockout is, until further notice, over. Any team that fails to honor that order could be in trouble.

It’s all moot, unless players show up for work on Tuesday. With hundreds of them under contract for 2011, we can’t imagine that not a single one will try.
Click to expand...
 
PapaL said:
Wouldn't that be all time awesome? I can see Jerry or Darth Vader in OAK pulling this move. At the end of the day it is a business and screw the opposition right? :ahhaha:
Click to expand...

I could see Bob giving Kubes and Co. a little inside info on the hearings and possibly with seeing a ruling a few days ahead of time, telling Kubes to get ready and sign "player A" because there will only be few days to make a move.

Possible? Absolutely......

Likely? Probably not.....but who knows
 
Here's the judge's response to the NFL's claim that federal courts don't have any right intervene in a labor dispute. Smart cookie.

In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the decision by the players to disband their union meant the case no longer came under federal labor law that prohibits injunctions, as claimed by the owners.
Click to expand...
link
 
Un-educated guess: The only way the owners can overcome this ruling is by opening their books and proving they are losing money.
 
In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the decision by the players to disband their union meant the case no longer came under federal labor law that prohibits injunctions, as claimed by the owners
Click to expand...

They disbanded that union in name only .... They were still negotiating with the NFL as per the judges orders with their Union Rep's ..... That kinda makes me wonder how she came to this decision.


This whole mess probably hurts the players outside of those at the very top of the pay scale. There's more than one way to skin a cat .....
 
Corrosion said:
They disbanded that union in name only .... They were still negotiating with the NFL as per the judges orders with their Union Rep's ..... That kinda makes me wonder how she came to this decision.


This whole mess probably hurts the players outside of those at the very top of the pay scale. There's more than one way to skin a cat .....
Click to expand...

1. They were not negotiating with any NFL entity from the time they de-certified until the time they were mandated by a federal judge to mediations.

2. Hurts the players by allowing them to go back to work, collect workout bonuses, etc?

from my limited reading of the judgement the fact that the players disbanded the union really has nothing to do with it - the law doesn't care if you disband and then reform. It has no provisions for "sham" unions, workers have the right to start a union, disband a union, start a union again.

Furthermore, the labor dispute is only a question in a broader anti-trust case, which the court most definitely has full authority to rule on. IN essence, the anti-trust case doesn't exactly depend on there being a union there or not, the players could still have a valid argument with or without a union.

Also, law/previous court cases seem to show that referring things to the NLRB for rulings (granting them jurisdiction) is mainly done when the cases are complicated or have never been seen before, i.e. the courts don't have the necessary experience to adjudicate them. She quoted a ton of rulings showing that this case was as easy as they come and consistent with NLRB rulings, thereby showing the court had the necessary experience to rule it. Actually, she seemed kind of angry with that argument and spent a whole lot of time shredding it to pieces.


I am most definitely not a lawyer, but that's what I got.
Click to expand...

Not me, but I asked somebody who is more eloquent than I.
 
Last edited:
This goes back to the agreement made by the league to not to use the format of the negotiations as proof that the decertification was a sham.
 
League huddles to figure out next steps
Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail.

And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality. It’s not as if the outcome was one of 1,000 different permutations. The ruling came from a fairly narrow band of possibilities. And yet in some ways it seems like the league has been caught with its proverbial pants down.
Click to expand...

Source: Coaches told not to speak to players

As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

A league source tells PFT’s Mike Florio that teams are telling coaches not to talk to its players while the NFL is in labor purgatory. That means if players are able to get in team facilities on Monday, like Steelers safety Ryan Clark and some others plan to, the coaches will have to avoid them.

Of course, it sounds like teams have no intention of allowing players into their buildings. The league is essentially trying to press pause until they have had the opportunity to seek a stay and appeal of the lifting of the lockout. And, oh, the draft starts in three days.

Just another strange night in this increasingly strange offseason.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that with no CBA in place and no real rules that say that the 2010 rules must be followed, the league can make many of the rules up as they go along. This could turn into an even bigger mess that it seems to be now.
 
We’re getting closer to getting on with business as usual.
The NFL needs to stay out of the courts.
:fans:
 
axman40 said:
We’re getting closer to getting on with business as usual.
The NFL needs to stay out of the courts.
:fans:
Click to expand...
Agreed. Millionaires should know how to hammer out a deal but I am still kind of happy about this as an NFL football fan I just want to see football as this point I don't care how they come to an agreement just do it.
 
Well, we can talk about court decisions until the cows come home, but I don't think there's going to be any football until the owners are happy.

And the owners are not happy, at all. And collectively, they can pull all kinds of rabbits out of their hats to muck things up until they get what they want.
 
So what if NFL players decide to report to their team facilities on Tuesday for offseason strength and conditioning? Any team that refuses to let the players inside possibly will be in violation of Judge Nelson’s order.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Vince Young can now enter into the Titans facility?
 
I'm pretty sure the owners don't have to open up their facilities immediately to any players who want to show up, they can argue that they have to set everything up in order to begin operations again.
 
Marcus said:
Well, we can talk about court decisions until the cows come home, but I don't think there's going to be any football until the owners are happy.

And the owners are not happy, at all. And collectively, they can pull all kinds of rabbits out of their hats to muck things up until they get what they want.
Click to expand...
eeyore.jpg
 
Ten things to know, right now, about the lockout ruling

Getty ImagesWith Judge Susan Nelson lifting the lockout via court order on Monday, plenty of you have plenty of questions.

We’ve tried to anticipate 10 of them.

And then we tried to answer them.

1. What does it mean?

In short, it means that the players’ strategy has worked, so far. When the union decertified, the objective was to place the players in position to block a lockout. Now, football can continue - with the players getting paid - while the two sides potentially move toward working out an agreement, at some point.

Of course, if the NFL prevails on appeal, the lockout will continue until the players agree to terms. With the lockout lifted, the players will be able to dig in, since their ability to work and be paid won’t be riding on their willingness to strike a deal.

2. What happens next?

The league wants to “stay” (i.e., delay) the lifting of the lockout pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The argument will be that opening the doors temporarily and then closing them after winning the case on appeal will create an undue hardship for the league.

If the league gets a stay, the lockout will remain in effect until the appeal is resolved.

If the league doesn’t get a stay, the lockout ends - and the new “league year” starts, with free agency and trades and players being cut and offseason workouts and, basically, business as usual. Unless and until the league wins on appeal.

3. What will happen on appeal?

The league is confident that it will win the appeal. The confidence comes in part from the fact that 13 of the 16 judges (active and senior status) assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit were nominated by Republican presidents. Though judges sometimes stray from their pre-bench political ideologies once they land lifetime appointments, the league surely likes its chances of getting a conservative, pro-business panel.

Initially, three judges (from the active and senior status) randomly will be assigned to the case. Persuading two of them will deliver a win.

The losing party then can file a petition for the case to be heard again before all of the active judges, and any senior status judges that served on the original three-judge panel. Those requests aren’t granted routinely, but this isn’t a routine case.

While the loose red state/blue state, pro-business/pro-labor composition of the 8th Circuit superficially favors the NFL, the standard that applies on appeal favors the players. The appeals court won’t be reviewing Judge Nelson’s work from scratch. Instead, the decision will be upheld unless the appeals court determines that Judge Nelson abused her discretion.

The 89-page written ruling seems was expertly crafted to avoid a finding that Judge Nelson acted unreasonably. Even if at least two of the three judges assigned to the case are inclined to conclude that the decertification of the union was a sham or that the courts must defer to the NLRB or that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents a court from enjoining a lockout, Judge Nelson’s reliance on past cases from the 8th Circuit supporting the idea that a so-called “preliminary injunction” can be obtained even if the likelihood of winning the case is lower than 50 percent, the question of whether the appellate judges believe the decertification of the union is valid doesn’t matter. All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

As we explained earlier in the month, it’s similar to the deference that a referee must give to the call on the field during replay review. Instead of substituting the referee’s judgment for the judgment of the official who made the call, the referee must look for evidence demonstrating that the call was clearly wrong. While Judge Nelson’s decision doesn’t have quite as much leeway, it’s simply not enough for the appeals court to disagree with her interpretation of the law. To overturn the decision to lift the lockout while the litigation proceeds, the appeals court must believe that the decision amounts to an abuse of the discretion inherent to trial courts.

4. When will free agency start?

That depends on several factors. If the NFL fails to finagle a stay, free agency could begin by the end of the week.

With a stay, free agency won’t happen unless and until the appeals court upholds Judge Nelson’s ruling.

Even if the league can’t delay the lifting of the lockout pending appeal, veteran players scheduled for free agency shouldn’t want the process to be rushed. Truly big money won’t be spent unless teams have had a chance to digest the rules for 2011, to set their budgets, to assess their needs, and to develops specific plans for the players who will be targeted.

As to rookie free agents who aren’t drafted, the players should push for the immediate signing of contracts, so that teams will be able to engage in their annual post-draft land rush for 15-20 undrafted rookies.

5. Can players be traded?

In theory, yes. But the league will ignore that issue until it learns whether a stay will be granted. If the ruling isn’t stayed, however, the league will have to allow trades.

And the union will push for that to happen immediately, since it will promote the movement of players during the draft, given that draft picks and players would be available as trade compensation.

6. Will the 2010 rules be used in 2011?

It’s unclear at this point. Many have assumed that the NFL will simply repeat the 2010 rules, which entailed no salary cap, no salary floor, and six years to unrestricted free agency.

With the players poised to challenge any rules implemented by the teams as a violation of the antitrust laws, the NFL needs to select the rules for 2011 carefully. If the league goes too far, the league will lose the antitrust lawsuit. If the league crafts rules narrowly aimed at ensuring competitive balance, the league could win the antitrust lawsuit - and the players would be stuck with a system that entails none of the protections that a union provides.

7. Will there be a rookie wage scale?

It depends. The league can impose one, and then the players would challenge it as an antitrust violation.

8. Will the parties continue to negotiate?

Yes. Mediation is scheduled to resume on May 16. The fact that the players won their motion to lift the lockout doesn’t end the case. The antitrust lawsuit continues, and a settlement of the case would become the next labor deal between the NFL and the players.

Though players like Domonique Foxworth have said that the players never intend to re-form the union, the problem with that approach is that any settlement between the current players and the league wouldn’t be binding on the annual influx of new players, who could challenge any of the rules to which the current players agree as violations of the antitrust laws.

Thus, the only way to reach a long-term labor accord will be to negotiate a new CBA, or to see the litigation to completion, with the league learning via trial and error (and the expenditure of millions in legal fees) what can and can’t be done from an antitrust standpoint.

9. How long could this take to resolve?

Years. But once the ruling lifting the lockout is finalized via the appeals process, football would continue until the antitrust case ends, as it did in the 1990s after the union decertified.

10. What happens to the “lockout insurance” case?

It still moves forward, even if there is no lockout (and thus no reason to use “lockout insurance”). Judge David Doty found last month that the league violated the CBA but failing to maximize the television revenue. At a minimum, the players are entitled to any money that the league “left on the table” when negotiating ongoing payments during a lockout instead of getting more money during the years of the deal not affected by a work stoppage.
Click to expand...
 
If players will ONLY be allowed to enter team facilities, but NOT the weight rooms, they would technically NOT be elligible for their "offseason workout bonuses."
 
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.
 
IDEXAN said:
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.
Click to expand...

Consider what CND posted (I'll paste it here, below):

The 89-page written ruling seems was expertly crafted to avoid a finding that Judge Nelson acted unreasonably. Even if at least two of the three judges assigned to the case are inclined to conclude that the decertification of the union was a sham or that the courts must defer to the NLRB or that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents a court from enjoining a lockout, Judge Nelson’s reliance on past cases from the 8th Circuit supporting the idea that a so-called “preliminary injunction” can be obtained even if the likelihood of winning the case is lower than 50 percent, the question of whether the appellate judges believe the decertification of the union is valid doesn’t matter. All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

As we explained earlier in the month, it’s similar to the deference that a referee must give to the call on the field during replay review. Instead of substituting the referee’s judgment for the judgment of the official who made the call, the referee must look for evidence demonstrating that the call was clearly wrong. While Judge Nelson’s decision doesn’t have quite as much leeway, it’s simply not enough for the appeals court to disagree with her interpretation of the law. To overturn the decision to lift the lockout while the litigation proceeds, the appeals court must believe that the decision amounts to an abuse of the discretion inherent to trial courts.
Click to expand...

She was sort of busy trying to not have her reputation as a judge ruined.

She took the time necessary to craft the wording on her ruling (she doesn't just go up there and bang a gavel and then says "That's all, folks!").

Plus, it sorta' looks bad if you rule on a case of this magnitude in only two or three days. It'd be seen as a "rush to judgment," and the likelihood of the appeals court overturning her ruling is increased, IMO.

All in all, it was handled professionally from what I have seen. We're biased because we're fans and we want our football and we want it yesterday.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
If players will ONLY be allowed to enter team facilities, but NOT the weight rooms, they would technically NOT be elligible for their "offseason workout bonuses."
Click to expand...
But, if the teams (read NFL) refuses to allow them to perform the requirements specified in their contracts, they would be in direct violation of the judge's order unless/until a stay is issued. It would also broaden the anti-trust claims by the players.
 
GP said:
Plus, it sorta' looks bad if you rule on a case of this magnitude in only two or three days. It'd be seen as a "rush to judgment," and the likelihood of the appeals court overturning her ruling is increased, IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.
 
IDEXAN said:
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.
Click to expand...
What authors do you read?
 
IDEXAN said:
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.
Click to expand...

considering the complexities involved and the potential fallout from the decision, I thought that the three weeks was more than reasonable - especially considering the utter lack of movement in the months and years of relative inaction on the parts of players/owners that led to this.

"Incredibly long time" - I actually thought the opposite.

I just finished cranking out 53 pages in the last 3 weeks and it's been miserable. And my topic is a whole lot less complicated than what she was doing with consequences more far reaching.

And I'm not sure what "contracting it out" means.

I'm with GP - I thought it was a reasonable amount of time and certainly appears, to me, to have been handled professionally.

Yea, we want it to end more quickly - all of us do. But compared to the years leading up to this, before and including the appointment of the mediator, 3 weeks sounds almost like a bargain
 
RazorOye said:
Yea, we want it to end more quickly - all of us do. But compared to the years leading up to this, before and including the appointment of the mediator, 3 weeks sounds almost like a bargain
Click to expand...
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
 
IDEXAN said:
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain she had paralegals working with her. Judges typically have a team under them to research precedent etc. I don't think it was one judge burning the midnight oil working alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top