Judge Orders Mediation (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Judge-Nelson-will-order-sides-to-return-to-mediation-7765.html

Personally, I like this as I think both sides are heading off a cliff if they continue this through the courts

 

[David Dodds]

video link from ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6324392&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This wont make the owners happy. They locked out for leverage.

 

[David Dodds]

This wont make the owners happy. They locked out for leverage.

I actually think they want this mediation more than the players. They expected things to go like this:1. They never thought the $4B would not be able to be used in a lockout.2. They really thought the players would keep negotiating and not go to the courts via decertification.Both sides had a conference call on Thursday with the judge. If either side did not want mediation they had the chance to speak up. I am optimistic that both sides would really like to get something done here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This wont make the owners happy. They locked out for leverage.

I actually think they want this mediation more than the players. They expected things to go like this:

1. They never thought the $4B would not be able to be used in a lockout.

2. They really thought the players would keep negotiating and not go to the courts via desertification.

Both sides had a conference call on Thursday with the judge. If either side did not want mediation they had the chance to speak up. I am optimistic that both sides would really like to get something done here.

But if the Judge can order them to meet... he can order the books opened to be reviewed. That's not how they want to settle this.

And not getting the 4billion is certainly something that hurts them, which was yet another court ruling.

They thought the players were gonna be forced because of the resource war they are waging.

 

[David Dodds]

This wont make the owners happy. They locked out for leverage.

I actually think they want this mediation more than the players. They expected things to go like this:

1. They never thought the $4B would not be able to be used in a lockout.

2. They really thought the players would keep negotiating and not go to the courts via desertification.

Both sides had a conference call on Thursday with the judge. If either side did not want mediation they had the chance to speak up. I am optimistic that both sides would really like to get something done here.

But if the Judge can order them to meet... he can order the books opened to be reviewed. That's not how they want to settle this.

And not getting the 4billion is certainly something that hurts them, which was yet another court ruling.

They thought the players were gonna be forced because of the resource war they are waging.

I agree with you, but I also don't think this is a FORCED mediation. If the NFL Owners want to say no to doing this in Minnesota under a mediator the Judge chooses I believe they can do that. I have never heard of forced mediation where one party does not want it. I think the owners really just want this business behind them. They bailed on the old agreement looking for a substantially better deal. They felt they had time and the $4B and would just wait out the players. The players would have likely caved too had the $4B ruling not went their way. That seem to give them new life.

Now that the NFL draft is approaching I think the owners really would like to get this behind them. Their league is going to look stupid at the NFL draft when all the questions are about the lockout. It's what a lot of us have been saying all along. The owners don't like the deal they signed, but they are not losing money. I think the owners were surprised when the players flatly refused their last offer and decertified. They knew that was all possible, but they felt their offer was substantial enough to at least keep both sides negotiating. Many here on these boards agree with that position.

But if the last CBA was good for the players and the owners seem willing to offer a deal about $300 to $500 million a year worse, I think this thing gets settled. Especially if 2 weeks of games get added as that is suppose to generate about $500M a year. The cost of a lost season is $9 Billion. Additionally, the league is growing revenues each year as well. Lose a season and we could be looking at taking 25-30 years to make up for that lost revenue (slower growth curve due to lost fans). In the end I just don't see the owners wanting to gamble this to the point where free agency, the salary cap, and the draft are all dictated by the courts.

There is a reason that decertification was always called the nuclear option. When the players played that card (especially after the earlier court decision halting the owners from using any of the $4Billion), they really took control of these negotiations. Regardless of which side one believes is right in this negotiation, I believe this mediation session is our best chance of getting a product that resembles the NFL we all love (complete with a draft, reasonable free agency, salary cap and minimums, etc)

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I agree with you, but I also don't think this is a FORCED mediation.

Well that would change things. I certainly thought a "Court order" is something you have to obey to.But the article stated "is going to order the NFL and the decertified players' union to return to mediation whether they like it or not"

Which coincides with the owners not being happy with it.

 

[Dave Larkin]

I'm optimistic about the mediation that will inevitably occur, but without a strict deadline in place where is the incentive for the players and owners to come to a deal? The players could just keep playing hardball, wait out for a favourable deal and bide their time until late in the summer. I hope Judge Nelson imposes a deadline of a week to two weeks to come to an agreement.

 

[roarlions]

I'm optimistic about the mediation that will inevitably occur, but without a strict deadline in place where is the incentive for the players and owners to come to a deal? The players could just keep playing hardball, wait out for a favourable deal and bide their time until late in the summer. I hope Judge Nelson imposes a deadline of a week to two weeks to come to an agreement.

I think David has already suggested a deadline for a deal, the start of the draft in 2 weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if both sides would like to get the deal done by then, regardless of whether it is imposed by the court or not.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Courts can order mediation and do it all the time. The parties aren't required to come to a resolution as part of mediation, however.

I don't think Big Steel Thrill is correct in the owners being unhappy about mediation. The owners 'locked out for leverage' statement leaves a whole lot of other facts unmentioned. The owners locked out subsequent to the players union decertifying (whether they would have done it or not otherwise is immaterial at the moment). The players decertified for leverage. If one of the parties can be described as not wanting the mediated process to continue, it would be the players, who feel like they have the upper hand in the courts and might prefer to keep chasing this rabbit.

The group that should be happiest about the forced mediation is the fans. A product most resembling the current product we have will likely be the result of a mediated/negotiated settlement. If this gets pushed through the courts, what might come out the other side isn't what most fans want to see.

 

[AngryPatriot]

Yea, that's a smart move by the judge. Get it done!

 

[D.J.]

I'm also under the impression that this IS forced meditation. I imagine the conference call went something like

Judge Nelson: "you both said publicly you want to negotiate again, now you will under my rules and you WILL do it in good faith to get a deal done"

As stated, this doesn't guarantee a deal gets done, but it does force botg sides to make offers and counter offers. they can also be forced to keep their mouths shut in public. There is much less room for posturing and winning in the court of public oponion now. Let's hope this less to a deal soon

 

[cobalt_27]

* The owners absolutely want to negotiate this thing out--not leave it up to the courts. They used the threat of a lockout to hopefully get the players to agree to a more reasonable deal.

* The players didn't and went nuclear with decertification.

* Right or wrong, the feel more empowered in the courtroom.

I don't think this forced mediation is going anywhere because the players have positioned themselves all along that they are not going to bend under any circumstances. The owners are going to expect some sort of cooperation with the players, but I don't see them getting it. The NFLPA has been unreasonably haughty throughout this entire process (e.g., unwilling to negotiate further after the owners made significant concessions, demanding 10 years of access to financial records, using this sham decertification, not as a statement of what they are, but as a litigation strategy--everyone knows they will reconvene as a union after the dust settles). Eventually, Judge Nelson will have to come to a ruling on whether to lift the lockout, and this is just more delay in getting to the appeal process.

The only hope I have is that she told them in the Friday conference call, "Look, [party X] has the upper hand here, and this is how I'm likely to eventually rule...[party Y] can save face here by going to 'mediation' and 'working out a deal' so that it doesn't look like you got owned by [party X] and my court."

That's my dream scenario, but I doubt the two sides (the players in particular) are going to find resolution here. I think we're still months away from a deal.

 

[David Dodds]

Courts can order mediation and do it all the time. The parties aren't required to come to a resolution as part of mediation, however.

This does make sense. I agree in this context it is forced mediation. Crossing my fingers that a mediator can cut through all the lawyers and get both sides to agree that they both have a lot to lose to continue through the courts.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Courts can order mediation and do it all the time. The parties aren't required to come to a resolution as part of mediation, however.

This does make sense. I agree in this context it is forced mediation. Crossing my fingers that a mediator can cut through all the lawyers and get both sides to agree that they both have a lot to lose to continue through the courts.

To add to this and address BST. It is highly unlikely that the courts at the court ordered mediations stage could require the NFL to 'open the books.' They could choose to as part of the negotiation (which seems unlikely based upon their stance on this in the past), but they won't likely be 'forced' to unless a hearing is had as part of litigation on the relevancy/admissability/discoverability of such information.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The only hope I have is that she told them in the Friday conference call, "Look, [party X] has the upper hand here, and this is how I'm likely to eventually rule...[party Y] can save face here by going to 'mediation' and 'working out a deal' so that it doesn't look like you got owned by [party X] and my court."

If she said that, I don't see party X's motivation to mediate a settlement. I sure as hell hope she said nothing of the kind.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Courts can order mediation and do it all the time. The parties aren't required to come to a resolution as part of mediation, however.

This does make sense. I agree in this context it is forced mediation. Crossing my fingers that a mediator can cut through all the lawyers and get both sides to agree that they both have a lot to lose to continue through the courts.

To add to this and address BST. It is highly unlikely that the courts at the court ordered mediations stage could require the NFL to 'open the books.' They could choose to as part of the negotiation (which seems unlikely based upon their stance on this in the past), but they won't likely be 'forced' to unless a hearing is had as part of litigation on the relevancy/admissability/discoverability of such information.

I never said it was likely. But when dealing with the courts, the courts hold the power.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Courts can order mediation and do it all the time. The parties aren't required to come to a resolution as part of mediation, however.

This does make sense. I agree in this context it is forced mediation. Crossing my fingers that a mediator can cut through all the lawyers and get both sides to agree that they both have a lot to lose to continue through the courts.

To add to this and address BST. It is highly unlikely that the courts at the court ordered mediations stage could require the NFL to 'open the books.' They could choose to as part of the negotiation (which seems unlikely based upon their stance on this in the past), but they won't likely be 'forced' to unless a hearing is had as part of litigation on the relevancy/admissability/discoverability of such information.

I never said it was likely. But when dealing with the courts, the courts hold the power.

Yes. Well, maybe I misspoke. The courts cannot order the books open as part of mediation. There would be significant litigation over that matter alone.

 

[D.J.]

* The owners absolutely want to negotiate this thing out--not leave it up to the courts. They used the threat of a lockout to hopefully get the players to agree to a more reasonable deal. * The players didn't and went nuclear with decertification.* Right or wrong, the feel more empowered in the courtroom.I don't think this forced mediation is going anywhere because the players have positioned themselves all along that they are not going to bend under any circumstances. The owners are going to expect some sort of cooperation with the players, but I don't see them getting it. The NFLPA has been unreasonably haughty throughout this entire process (e.g., unwilling to negotiate further after the owners made significant concessions, demanding 10 years of access to financial records, using this sham decertification, not as a statement of what they are, but as a litigation strategy--everyone knows they will reconvene as a union after the dust settles). Eventually, Judge Nelson will have to come to a ruling on whether to lift the lockout, and this is just more delay in getting to the appeal process.The only hope I have is that she told them in the Friday conference call, "Look, [party X] has the upper hand here, and this is how I'm likely to eventually rule...[party Y] can save face here by going to 'mediation' and 'working out a deal' so that it doesn't look like you got owned by [party X] and my court."That's my dream scenario, but I doubt the two sides (the players in particular) are going to find resolution here. I think we're still months away from a deal.

I think that the players not being willing to negotiate in mandated mediation would be a big mistake for them. Right now they appear to haver sympathy from Nelson. If they refuse to play ball, they risk losing that. I think in this scenario both sides will have to actually negotiate towards a deal (not necessarily reach one) and not just go through the motions. Nelson seems to be pretty smart and no nonsense, I would hope she won't put up with either side not truly working towards a resolution.

 

[shader]

Any chance this can get done in the next ten days or so? If it's inevitable that it's going to get done in the next few weeks, I would think the owners would press to go ahead and get it done. A lot of teams would really like to have free agency and trading come before the draft. Although that looks like a long-shot, it would make for an exciting week next week.

 

[D.J.]

Any chance this can get done in the next ten days or so? If it's inevitable that it's going to get done in the next few weeks, I would think the owners would press to go ahead and get it done. A lot of teams would really like to have free agency and trading come before the draft. Although that looks like a long-shot, it would make for an exciting week next week.

I don't remember where I read it, but one article indicted that both sides would want a deal in place by the draft (assuming mediation works). I'm not sure if it will happen, but that would be prefect!

 

[David Dodds]

Any chance this can get done in the next ten days or so? If it's inevitable that it's going to get done in the next few weeks, I would think the owners would press to go ahead and get it done. A lot of teams would really like to have free agency and trading come before the draft. Although that looks like a long-shot, it would make for an exciting week next week.

I really think this is the goal of the owners to get a deal done by early next week. This would accomplish these things:- Frame the league in a positive light for the upcoming Draft. Imagine if the deal gets done a few days before the draft. Things will be hot and heavy all the way up to and through the draft. This would make the draft incredibly exciting. - Keep the framework (Draft, Free Agency, Salary Cap) all in play for the foreseeable future.- Avoid a lot of court room drama that can only hurt their product. Do they really want to be arguing with Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady on a public stage.- Real money losses are about to start here for both sides. Everyone can talk tough that they can outlast the other side, but both sides are likely starting to bleed right now. The players would be getting roster bonuses, free agency checks, etc. The owners need dollars from TV to pay players, stadium mortgages, etc.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if the Judge can order them to meet... he can order the books opened to be reviewed.

I don't know of any basis for the judge having authority to do that.

I certainly thought a "Court order" is something you have to obey to.

A court will usually order mediation when both parties want it to. If one party doesn't want to mediate, the court may try to talk the party into it. But if there is still strong resistance, a court will generally not order mediation, because it would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I'm optimistic about the mediation that will inevitably occur, but without a strict deadline in place where is the incentive for the players and owners to come to a deal? The players could just keep playing hardball, wait out for a favourable deal and bide their time until late in the summer. I hope Judge Nelson imposes a deadline of a week to two weeks to come to an agreement.

Nobody can make the parties come to an agreement.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

- Real money losses are about to start here for both sides. Everyone can talk tough that they can outlast the other side, but both sides are likely starting to bleed right now. The players would be getting roster bonuses, free agency checks, etc. The owners need dollars from TV to pay players, stadium mortgages, etc.

I don't see why the owners would be feeling any pain any time soon. They don't have to pay players until the season starts or the lockout is lifted. I can't see why they would already be having problems with their mortgages. If so, I'm sure they have the ability to get short term loans to bridge the gap.For the players, it's only going to get worse. Aside from their roster bonuses, once the draft occurs, the owners may have filled some of their holes and that will reduce some openings for FAs.

 

[Ksquared]

I'm optimistic about the mediation that will inevitably occur, but without a strict deadline in place where is the incentive for the players and owners to come to a deal? The players could just keep playing hardball, wait out for a favourable deal and bide their time until late in the summer. I hope Judge Nelson imposes a deadline of a week to two weeks to come to an agreement.

Nobody can make the parties come to an agreement.

Could a judge in this arena of law require binding arbitration?

 

[Gatorman]

I don't see why the owners would be feeling any pain any time soon. They don't have to pay players until the season starts or the lockout is lifted. I can't see why they would already be having problems with their mortgages. If so, I'm sure they have the ability to get short term loans to bridge the gap.

Not sure this is true. The big issue the owners are having (or pretending to have) is an issue with debt and the financing of that debt. The $4B was to help offset that issue and now that money is in escrow.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'm with Maurile. While getting the parties to sit down and talk is, OF COURSE, a good thing, Nelson is in uncharted territory here a bit. She's basically threatening both sides by saying her decision could be worse than they anticipate, so better to settle the issue themselves. The thing is, by most accounts the players have been gearing up for litigation from jump street. Getting the parties back to the table is great, but I don't see how we can go beyond that because I don't see why they have any incentive to actually get something accomplished UNLESS they've had a 180 in their view of the legal proceedings.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Could a judge in this arena of law require binding arbitration?

No. There's currently no CBA requiring arbitration, so the parties have a right to their day in court.

 

[D.J.]

http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3108/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F149141414513881271301531150812&view=hdl&itemTitle=Judge%20Nelson%20appoints%20magistrate%20judge%20to%20handle%20mediation

So, is this enough now for the owners to make a deal better than their last offer? It seems to me that the legal side is going really badly for them.

 

[roarlions]

http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3108/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F149141414513881271301531150812&view=hdl&itemTitle=Judge%20Nelson%20appoints%20magistrate%20judge%20to%20handle%20mediationSo, is this enough now for the owners to make a deal better than their last offer? It seems to me that the legal side is going really badly for them.

This decision makes sense because Judge Nelson was previously a magistrate judge.

 

[D.J.]

http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3108/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F149141414513881271301531150812&view=hdl&itemTitle=Judge%20Nelson%20appoints%20magistrate%20judge%20to%20handle%20mediationSo, is this enough now for the owners to make a deal better than their last offer? It seems to me that the legal side is going really badly for them.

This decision makes sense because Judge Nelson was previously a magistrate judge.

Yeah, it sounds like she basically works for Nelson

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If she said that, I don't see party X's motivation to mediate a settlement. I sure as hell hope she said nothing of the kind.

That's pretty much how it went down 18 years ago. Judge Dodd told the owners they were about to be slaughtered in his ruling, and the had the players recertify as a union and negotiated a deal that included Free Agency - which was what the players had been asking for all along.

 

[Thorpe]

I doubt anything happens until the players start missing game checks. They are probably loving the time off. I think we miss a portion of the regular season.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If she said that, I don't see party X's motivation to mediate a settlement. I sure as hell hope she said nothing of the kind.

That's pretty much how it went down 18 years ago. Judge Dodd told the owners they were about to be slaughtered in his ruling, and the had the players recertify as a union and negotiated a deal that included Free Agency - which was what the players had been asking for all along.

Yes. If the owner's are willing to capitulate to all of the player's demands, the player's will have the incentive to settle it. Otherwise, such a statement only emboldens the players. And I think what happened 18 years ago won't repeat as the owner's will likely want to get out of the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts and take their chances on appeal.

 

[Mark Wimer]

I agree with you, but I also don't think this is a FORCED mediation.

Well that would change things. I certainly thought a "Court order" is something you have to obey to.But the article stated "is going to order the NFL and the decertified players' union to return to mediation whether they like it or not"

Which coincides with the owners not being happy with it.

I think the judge had to order the sides to mediation in order to secure which venue was going to be doing the mediating (in Minneapolis under the current court's jurisdiction, or in Washington with mediator Cohen - the two sides were squabbling over where and under whose purview they were going to return to mediation in). This order settles where the mediation occurs. As I understood the reports, both sides were willing to return to mediation, but the venue question was causing more delays.

 

[Rooster]

Maybe some of you legal folks can clarify something for me. Who exactly are the owners negotiating with now that the union decertified? I thought the union decertifying meant that it could no longer negotiate on the players behalf. If the judge is ordering the two sides to negotiate and it's NFLPA-types representing the players without the legal authority to do so, doesn't this just support the whole "this decertification is a sham" argument of the owners? and if that's how the judge is treating them now, isn't it likely that it would be ruled as such sometime down the road? I'm just not sure how the players get to continue to play both sides of the coin here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Maybe some of you legal folks can clarify something for me. Who exactly are the owners negotiating with now that the union decertified? I thought the union decertifying meant that it could no longer negotiate on the players behalf. If the judge is ordering the two sides to negotiate and it's NFLPA-types representing the players without the legal authority to do so, doesn't this just support the whole "this decertification is a sham" argument of the owners? and if that's how the judge is treating them now, isn't it likely that it would be ruled as such sometime down the road? I'm just not sure how the players get to continue to play both sides of the coin here.

Players can still choose legal representation to represent them in meditations/courts. They are still allowed to all choose the same reps (or a handfull of reps).And in many cases you have the players themselves (many which are player-team reps) representing a group of people. None of these things which are open to the normal public to do constitute a Union.

They are still a Trade Association.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Maybe some of you legal folks can clarify something for me. Who exactly are the owners negotiating with now that the union decertified? I thought the union decertifying meant that it could no longer negotiate on the players behalf. If the judge is ordering the two sides to negotiate and it's NFLPA-types representing the players without the legal authority to do so, doesn't this just support the whole "this decertification is a sham" argument of the owners? and if that's how the judge is treating them now, isn't it likely that it would be ruled as such sometime down the road? I'm just not sure how the players get to continue to play both sides of the coin here.

This came from the post in the decertification thread:

Nelson's order called for legal counsel for the parties "as well as a party representative having full authority" to attend. She also said that participation in the mediation "and any communications conveyed between the parties in this process, shall not be admitted or used against any party in any other proceeding or forum, for any purpose."That would appear to address the players' concern that any talks held after the dissolution of the union could be construed as collective bargaining -- and thus bolster the NFL's claim that the dissolution was a "sham" merely intended to strengthen the players' position at the bargaining table.Last week, NFL executive vice president Jeffrey Pash sent a letter to Quinn, with a copy going to Nelson. Pash wrote that the league is "prepared to give reasonable and appropriate assurances" that the players' legal position -- not a union protected by labor laws but a group of players suing under antitrust laws -- would not be compromised through any new talks.

 

[Hoosier16]

I doubt anything happens until the players start missing game checks. They are probably loving the time off. I think we miss a portion of the regular season.

The owners lack of access to the $4B virtually guarantees we will have a season. It will just be under a different set of rules. So, nothing probably happens until the players start missing the old, larger game checks.