Report: Owners refused to meet with players last week
Not good for the players. This makes them appear as if they are acting as a "union" which is the whole premise of the owners' arguement. If they can prove that the players union never truely "decertified," then the court can't grant an injunction. Combine this with the recent Mike Vrabel news, and the players are really putting themselves in a bad situation...
The Owners said this was a lie. Please don't believe anything you read reguarding this, it's all BS.
I think the players are going to lose this fight, and that would have little to nothing to do with it. The problem with them supposedly de-certifying, is that now they are disorganized and have Players running their mouths and getting caught saying things that are hurting their cause. I've read the entire brief that the NFL presented to the court as their case against the Players. It's just littered with media clips, tweets, etc of Players saying things that really help the NFL's case against them. I don't think they can win at this point. But, who knows?
Last edited by Extremebillsfan247; 04-05-2011 at 09:49 AM.
its gonna be a mess at least until we hear the ruling tomorrow
Plus, it was opposite day...Originally Posted by pinkdogg32
Highly unlikely to hear a ruling tomorrow. The players filed for an injunction, which requires them to file briefs in support of their argument, to which the owners respond. Tomorrow is an oral argument in which the judge will simply grill the parties' respective attorneys on points she finds critical to their arguments. When that's done, she'll probably have more or less made up her mind, but in all likelihood will take a bit (from several days to several weeks) to rule on the injunction request.
The standard for granting an injunction is whether "irreparable harm" will occur in the event that the injunction is not granted and the litigation is allowed to proceed. I.e., the players have to prove to the judge that if she does not enjoin (block) the lockout so that NFL business can proceed as usual while the litigation is pending, then the players will suffer harm that cannot be repaired by way of future monetary compensation etc.
A typical example of where an injunction would be granted would be, for instance, if a plaintiff filed suit to prevent a building from being constructed, perhaps on the grounds that the construction violated local zoning laws. The plaintiff might request an injunction to prevent the construction from proceeding until their court case was resolved. In such a case, if the construction continued while the court case was in progress, the building might be complete by the time the case was over, and even if the Plaintiff won, the building would be hard to remove at that point.
Here, while I haven't read the briefs, I'm skeptical that the players will be able to show that they will be irreparably harmed if the lockout continues while they litigate. They may be harmed in the sense of lost paychecks if it continues too long, but lost paychecks can be "repaired" in the form of monetary compensation at the end of the case.
I think the injunction will be denied, and then we'll be waiting on the resolution of the owner's complaint to the National Labor Relations Board that the players are engaging in unfair labor practices by their "sham" of a decertification.
Wake up, brush your teeth, and get ready for a day of hating the Dolphins. Or the Pats? How to choose?
Yea what he said.
COMING SOON...
Exactly my point all BS right now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote