Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Why is now crunch time?

because in order to get "normal" FA, rookies signed, Training camp and a full schedule, something needs to happen. Add in pending court rulings from both Doty and the 8th District, both sides have a lot riding on getting a deal on soon.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

because in order to get "normal" FA, rookies signed, Training camp and a full schedule, something needs to happen. Add in pending court rulings from both Doty and the 8th District, both sides have a lot riding on getting a deal on soon.

I get the signing and free agent stuff I have not kept up on what the courts have ruled. Can that be explained in a sentence or two? If not I guess i'll do some reading next time I'm sitting on hold.

[CRedskinsRule]

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

As much as I'd LOVE that, I think two more weeks is the timeframe only because the owners meetings on June 21-22 will be where the deal will live or die. I think they can come to a framework agreement this week but won't actually do anything until next week because of leaks and lawyers.

I should have specified that I don't think any finalized deal would be announced within the next 48 hours, but that the basic framework of a deal would be agreed upon.

Who knows for sure though

[NLC1054]

Rumors breaking out that there's some increased friction now that the lawyers are involved again...

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Rumors breaking out that there's some increased friction now that the lawyers are involved again...

....from where?What lawyers?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CancunCantinaBartender

We dropped DirecTV after the 2009 season because their offer of "every game" was not fulfilled. Redskins vs. Detroit was not shown (not a game a fan wanted to see with the Redskins losing). When we called to complain and find out why it was not being broadcast, we were told because the game was blacked out in Detroit because there was not a sellout. Because DirecTV had no way to isolate that market, they were forced to not show the game at all. Since we are out of the DC market the game was not shown at all.

I got that game on Direct TV and I live in the Detroit local market, although outside the NFL-mandated blackout radius around Ford Field of 70 miles.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

Thank you. Now I'm up to speed with everything going on. I don't get how making the lockout permanent eliminates the players leverage. Its not like if they show up to the stadium things will go back to normal or is the term Lockout not that?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thank you. Now I'm up to speed with everything going on. I don't get how making the lockout permanent eliminates the players leverage. Its not like if they show up to the stadium things will go back to normal or is the term Lockout not that?

The players anti-trust suit lawsuit is a giant stick hanging over the owners head, but it takes a long time for lawsuits to work their way through the legal system (as we see with these expedited cases). If the owners are given the ok to lockout the players for the year it is much harder for the players to stay together if they are missing game checks so the threat of a finding in the anti-trust suit diminishes greatly.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by Giantone

....from where?What lawyers?

Per Rich Tandler, who was retweeting it...

[SmootSmack]

I don't know. I think it's really close

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

This kinda came out last week. It was mentioned that both sides needed to come to an agreement because if they didn't both sides would not be happy with the outcome.

It was thought that the 8th Circuit would basically allow the Lockout to continue, however if both sides didn't get something done by Sept. 11 (start of season) then the owners would pay the players triple the amount for each game. If the whole season is lost then it would cost close to 3 Billion.

Does it mean any one side has leverage? yes and no. The owners would get leverage for now but I can actually see the players deciding to not agree to anything in order to make the owners pay a price for winning now.

Basically the 8th Circuit was saying that they would listen to arguements but didn't feel they had the right to intervene and lift the lockout (which they must still be standing behind).

U.S. Court Court of Appeals - Welcome

Click on "Oral Arguements" and you'll get to hear both sides. Both sides get 25 min. each.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Doty has a pending ruling that will award some unknown sum to the players (up to about $3billion). 8th District has a pending ruling that could make the lockout permanent and basically eliminate the players leverage of the anti-trust lawsuit.

Obviously simplified for the single sentence requirement, but both sides have a big incentive not to let the other shoe fall on either of these rulings.

Found it and it's not 3 Billion, it's more like 10 Billion.

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like | ProFootballTalk

How the Eighth Circuit could issue a ruling neither side will like

Posted by Mike Florio on June 5, 2011, 1:34 PM EDT
One of the best things about doing radio spots is that the discussion often gives me the kind of clarity that merely sitting at the keyboard doesn’t. That’s exactly what happened earlier today, when I chatted with Howard Balzer of 101 ESPN in St. Louis.
With Judge Kermit Bye strongly suggesting that neither side will like the ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit renders and with NFL lawyer Paul Clement being peppered with questions about the possibility that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the discussion with Balzer has helped me finally figure out how precisely how the Eighth Circuit could issue a decision that no one likes.
First, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents courts from issuing injunctions aimed at ending any lockout or strike arising from a “labor dispute,” with that term being given a broad interpretation that would apply even after the decertification of a union, legitimate or sham. This would allow the current lockout to proceed, indefinitely.
Second, the Eighth Circuit would rule that the non-statutory antitrust exemption lasts for only six months after expiration of the CBA, given the specific term in the expired labor deal requiring the players to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit. Given the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this wouldn’t end the lockout as of September 11, the day on which the first slate of Sunday games are due to be played. However, it would expose the NFL to treble damages beginning with Week One of the regular season, if the lockout ultimately is determined to be an antitrust violation as of September 11.
Thus, the owners would be able to lock the players out for all of the 2011 season, but the owners would ultimately be responsible for the full player payroll in 2011, times three. That’s an amount that easily would exceed $10 billion.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I don't know. I think it's really close

Others agree with you...

Freeman: Some believe deal could come “within a matter of days” | ProFootballTalk

Freeman also reports that 80 to 85 percent of the next labor deal has been negotiated, and that the entire process has become very cordial, with smiles, handshakes, and smalltalk.
“It’s going to be very difficult for this to get screwed up,” a source “with intimate knowledge of the discussions” told Freeman.

[Lotus]

^ Gollee I hope that is correct information.