Brady vs. NFL Sherman Anti-Trust Law Suit (1 Viewer)

[Toads]

I'm not real gud at somethings. At some other things, I'm passable. Then, somethings, I'm right on.

I've been squacking for the last eighteen months that this Labor deal is going to limit the discussion here at FBG's, as in zero topics except one, for an extended period of time.

Well, we've reached that point. There's nothing but conjecture from this point forward as the Union has decerted over a refusal by the Owner's to allow for there $ claims to be examined, as in full disclosure of the Owner's financing.

This article

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor

spells out the battle going forward, as in the triple damages under Sherman Anti-Trust Law that will be adjudicated in the court of Player benefit.

It'll come down to Sherman Anti-Trust Law, in the courts, as the flag post for an agreement as to how the game we love is managed (and maybe even played some day in the far distant future). That's what I've said since eighteen months ago....1) that we'd end up, here, with only one topic of discussion, and, 2) the case would end up in court, with a Sherman Anti-Trust Law Suite.

Optimisim has just been replaced by Realism.

Fantasy is trumped by Reality.



P.S.: I'm not real gud at copying articles, but I can provide the link. If somebody else can expand that mess, I'd appreciate it.

P.P.S.: The article has been modified to prevent cross-site scripting. It's a complete picture of "was up" but can only be read by viewing the linkee.

Also, here's a link to the Players request to unseal the evidence in the TV rulings case, stating that it "....will be the basis for all rulings to come" :

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor-uniontvcomplaint

 

[Young 8]

I thought Brady was in Rio dancing with Giselle

 

[Clarence the barber]

Silly how 1/3 of the NFL's teams are based in Delaware.

 

[Toads]

Looks like this will play out with four or five court related challenges that end up forcing the two sides back to the table.

There's a possibility that the Owner's would be required to establish rules for engagement for the 2011 season.....that'll play it's self out, too.

Me, I'm leaning towards the player's side of the table. The Union's question: "Why do we have to alter the terms of the deal that leads to a $9B pie?" Under the circumstances, that's a reasonable question to ask.

Asking for full disclosure isn't unreasonable, either. If the Owner's claims are true then show them the books and then you've got a partner if your claims are true. The Owner's problem comes from large vs. small market teams. The revenue picture in Green Bay is a lot different than in Dallas.

If that's the Owner's problem, let them subsidize the small market teams outa their take. Three legged stool here: 1) The Players, 2) the Large Market Owners, and 3) The Small Market Owners. Let the large market Owners figure out the equation for their small market Owners, that's not the players problem.

Or, is it? If the Owners do the full disclosure bit, I wouldn't think that it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to ask for the players to assist in subsidizing the small market teams. Go to the players and explain the problem and ask them to share in the solution.

Gee, that's a real good idea now that I think about it.

 

[mightyeskimo]

When is this case scheduled to be heard?

 

[Toads]

When is this case scheduled to be heard?

A hearing date has not been set.

 

[Runningman]

I thought Brady was in Rio dancing with Giselle

His lawyers are still in the states!