Anything less than dismissal is, unfortunately, a victory for the players. Let’s hope the owners stay the course, and prevail ON THE MERITS by locking out the players – as is their right – until they can secure a fair deal that protects the game we love.

That starts with sticking to their guns and opposing this sham decertification (a spade is a spade).
______________________
I’m all for differences of opinion, and I love debating issues with people who think differently, but could you please explain some of your claims? You call the decertification of the players’ union a sham and state that the owners have a right to lock out the players as if these issues were established facts, yet you offer up no evidence to support those claims.

As far as I know, workers have the right to form a union or dissolve it almost at will. I don’t remember hearing any statute stating that workers have the right to decertify a union, unless that decertification gives the workers an advantage in negotiations. Saying the only reason they decertified is to bring an anti-trust case is not proof that decertification is a sham, it simply means that the players know how to act in their own self interest.

As for the lockout, that’s only justified if the courts believe that decertification is a sham, and that the union is still active as a union (rather than the trade association they say they currently are). Why? Because, if there is no union, the NFL has no counter-balancing force that would allow for anti-trust exemptions, and all 32 teams agreeing to lock the players out would certainly fit the definition of individual companies (which the Supreme Court has stated the NFL teams are) colluding to tamper with the market. That’s a clear anti-trust violation. The only way around that would be for the NFL to convince the government to redefine the NFL as one company with 32 sub-divisions, and that’s something they certainly don’t want to happen. That would make the NFL a monopoly, and under US law they’d have to be regulated by the federal government. No one wants that.

So, it appears that you’ve taken a hard to prove claim (one that the sitting judge seems disinclined to agree with at present), and used that as the justification for a second hard to prove claim. Again, a lockout is only allowable if the NFL’s anti-trust exemptions remain fully in place. Those anti-trust exemptions can only remain fully in place if a counter-balance to the league’s power (like a players’ union) is in place to negotiate with the owners on an equal footing. Rather than being established facts, your claims are somewhat of a house of cards that can be tumbled if even one card is out of place.

It’s good news for those of us who are fans if the two sides get back to the table, with mediators who can force things along.

I’m sure a statement will be issued shortly from NFLPA association claiming this is the worst mediation in the history of sports…

That starts with sticking to their guns and opposing this sham decertification (a spade is a spade).

Via mediation, the players will give up around 200 to 300 million dollars of revenue in exchange for improved health care benefits. The deal will be hailed as a great compromise yadda yadda yadda and we will, of course, have a full season.

The end.

Am hoping that it is mediation for the CBA…The players wish to mediate the lawsuit, which is BS.

People out here like DEB think that the players have wanted to negociate the CBA, they do not unless they hold the leverage of the lawsuit over the owners head.

Get the CBA done…and there is no lawsuit…No CBA, and I hope the owners appeal, win, and next fall or so, force the players to take a pitiful deal due to desperation.
_____________________________
I get your point, but you’re missing two key points. The first is that there are no good or bad guys here, simply two parties angling for leverage in a negotiation. You point out that the players don’t want to negotiate the CBA itself until/unless they have some additional leverage from court rulings, but the owners are seeking the exact same leverage. In locking out the players, they are trying to make sure the negotiations occur during a war of attrition that they are better equipped to handle.

The biggest misconception, however, is that CBA negotiations and litigation negotiations are inherently different. It’s mostly an issue of semantics, as litigation negotiations can come with the very guarantees that the owners want. For instance, the original anti-trust ruling in the Reggie White case may not have been pleasing to the owners, but it also required that the players re-form the union. So, there’s nothing preventing a re-forming of the union being a part of any litigation settlement. Such a deal would make sure that the NFL’s anti-trust exemptions returned, preventing any future anti-trust cases. The other big concern for the owners is making sure that the courts don’t have oversight over a new CBA. Again, it’s simply a matter of negotiating a deal that would put an arbitrator (one agreed upon by both sides) in an oversight position. So, if they really wanted to, the owners could engage in “litigation settlement talks” that resulted in a new CBA, a reformed players’ union, and no court oversight over the new agreement. Those are the very things the owners want from official CBA negotiations. The real reason the owners don’t want to do so is because they’re worried that the players have an advantage in the current court case, which would give them some leverage in the negotiations. If the players agreed to walk away from the courts to engage in negotiations, however, the leverage is almost solely in the hands of the owners.

And people wonder why governors like John Kasich want to limit Union power.
_______________________
You might want to rethink your analogy, as this case involves a union dissolving as opposed to unions trying to protect their right to negotiate as a union. Btw, the politicians you speak of oppose unions because they support corporations, the same corporations that are shipping jobs overseas and claiming that their headquarters are located in a post office box in some small island nation to avoid paying taxes. Are some unions messed up? Yes, but so are some companies. Taking a stance that is so pro one side or the other tends to leave you defending people you’d despise if you actually fully considered your stance. It’s much better to consider each instance as what it is, a unique circumstance with its own unique factors.

If the Judge orders the mediation it doesn’t matter if it’s Cohen or not, it WILL be under said umbrella.

Can’t be otherwise, can it?

With all due respect to Judge Babe Nelson, nothing will get accomplished in mediation. The league wants this case decided by the REAL justices in St. Louis. Again, with all due respect to madam Judge, this is a case that needs the experience of the men folk in St. Louie.
___________________
Well, setting aside your blatant sexism for the moment, it seems you don’t realize how appellate courts actually function. It is not the duty of an appeals court to retry the initial case. Appeals courts listen to arguments concerning the way the initial case was handled. If the appeals court finds that the initial ruling was not within the scope of the judge’s authority, or that there was an error in the process that led to the original judgment, then the appellate court can set aside the original ruling or overturn it. Appellate courts are not, however, supposed to overturn a ruling simply because it’s not the ruling they would have rendered…unless of course that’s because they feel there was an error in the manner in which the statutes was applied. The odds of losing a case and winning an appeal are very low. That is, in part, because judge’s tend to go out of their way to avoid reversible rulings or orders. No one wants to have the higher ups publicly state that they messed up.

Absolutely, the players wanted the lockout because they wanted to do without their paychecks for a season. Since the majority of players do not make multi-million-dollar salaries, and like most people, live on what they earn, they wanted to lose their incomes.

I’ve enjoyed interacting with many intelligent, well-informed commenters whose views on the labor dispute happen to oppose mine. But you aren’t one of them. You’re just a mean-spirited person who wishes evil on players. You’ve now found a companion in the guy who tells everyone else to shut up and learn from him. Great. Now you can stop talking to me.

This is the best news in weeks, even if it doesn’t in and of itself resolve anything.

You mooed? Thanks, but I’m not a fan of sour milk.

You are exactly correct. The players and their great leader the ambulance chaser only want to use the courts as their protector. Now if they are so worried about sitting down with the owners and truely negotiating, then it must mean they do not have much faith in their leader and committee.

The players claim they are being so severly harmed by the lockout that they need the courts act quickly to help them, yet the players dont even show up for the hearing that they temselves requested.

Several leaders and players have already let it slip that they decertified so they can sue in court. SHAM!
The great ambulance chaser turned away George Martin and refuses to meet with him.

The owners have met with Martin and have offered increased pension and benefits to retired players.

People out here like DEB think that the players have wanted to negociate the CBA, they do not unless they hold the leverage of the lawsuit over the owners head.

Get the CBA done…and there is no lawsuit…No CBA, and I hope the owners appeal, win, and next fall or so, force the players to take a pitiful deal due to desperation.

Either way, this labor dispute is in it’s final days.