Lockout judge thinks players have "strong case"

[Mr. Scot]

If the judge orders mediation, it'll be a whole other animal.

The federal mediator was essentially just a facilitator. He had no actual power to tell either side to do one thing or another.

If they go into arbitration under a judge, then the judge listens to both sides, makes a decision and it's binding.

[countryboi]

If the judge orders mediation, it'll be a whole other animal.

The federal mediator was essentially just a facilitator. He had no actual power to tell either side to do one thing or another.

If they go into arbitration under a judge, then the judge listens to both sides, makes a decision and it's binding.

is this even a possibly? and is this now the best case scenario?

[blackcatgrowl]

is this even a possibly? and is this now the best case scenario?

Depends on the timeframe.

It could take a long time to setup a mediation and to get both sides to agree to the terms of mediation. There is also the NLRB review of the decertification of the NFLPA* that will play into this.

[Mr. Scot]

is this even a possibly? and is this now the best case scenario?

It's a possibility.

Best case scenario? That's open to debate.

[XClown1986]

If the judge orders mediation, it'll be a whole other animal.

The federal mediator was essentially just a facilitator. He had no actual power to tell either side to do one thing or another.

If they go into arbitration under a judge, then the judge listens to both sides, makes a decision and it's binding.

The judge can postpone ruling under which time she recommends that both sides should aggressively work out a new CBA. If she finds that both sides were unable to do so, then she can give her verdict. If need be, it may go into arbitration, but it doesn't make it necessary.

[Mr. Scot]

The judge can postpone ruling under which time she recommends that both sides should aggressively work out a new CBA. If she finds that both sides were unable to do so, then she can give her verdict. If need be, it may go into arbitration, but it doesn't make it necessary.

I won't be surprised if that's where it ends up :(

[Highlandfire]

Good, end the damn lockout and let there be football!

+1 for the outstanding avatar, -1000 for wanting the players to win just to have this season. the league and the future of the league is more important.

But we love ya anyway :D

[Highlandfire]

The judge can postpone ruling under which time she recommends that both sides should aggressively work out a new CBA. If she finds that both sides were unable to do so, then she can give her verdict. If need be, it may go into arbitration, but it doesn't make it necessary.

X, From what I have read on her I will be shocked if she doesn't pull both sides into mediation damn near immediately, which she would oversee.

[mountainpantherfan]

It's looking like the courts are going to side with the players.

IMO, that is not a good thing at all. If she finds the lockout to be illegal (which in all fairness it is but so is the sham decertification of the union) then the NFL will appeal as long as Nelson doesn't order the lockout to end immediately. Should that happen, that's all folks, no more NFL as we knew it. No way the owners are going to move forward like before. No draft, no salary cap, no restrictions free agents, no vet or general minimum salary. The NFL as we knew it will be over with and this is what the players are asking for, what they are sueing for.

The players and the NFLPA are the biggest dumbasses I've ever seen. They are going to ruin this league and it won't be 10 years down the road. It's today.

[Woodie]

and the league would run under the 2010 rules?

Technically, the league could impliment any rules they want to since there is no union. However, realistically they need to keep it reasonable since the players will try to use whatever rules they establish against the league in the anit-trust lawsuit. So in order to play it safe, I think they will defer to the 2010 rules since they are the most recent rules they operated under.

[Woodie]

One issue about this that I don't know if anyone is thinking about is that if they do impliment the 2010 rules, along with no salary cap or floor, it also means no rookie salary cap. In other words, no discounted #1 pick for us. And anyone that is hoping for a trade down can pretty much forget it. It's going to difficult enough finding a trading partner if there is a rookie cap (or at least the expectation of one), but damn near impossible to find one if the team can also expect to have to pay upwards of 70 million.

And for those wanting Cam, while the Panthers may be willing to take the risk at about 35 million, it may just be a bit to rich for them to take the chance on a guy that pretty much everyone agrees is still raw as a QB and has some character questions.

[Mr. Scot]

Florio points out that the NFL side is getting the bulk of the questions. Usually a bad sign in legal circles (link)

[mountainpantherfan]

I've been thinking about this, she can not force labor mediation. There is no union.

So she can only force mediation as it relates to the suite filed by the players. Since the suite is based on antitrust laws that will only go into effect once the lockout is removed and the owners "force" regulations like the salary cap and the draft onto every team, forced mediation can not occur until the judge rules in favor of the injuction against the lockout AND the league imposes unilateral rules for all teams. If neither of those actions occur, mediation can not occur.

At least that my thinking, not a lawyer here but just basic reason seems to dictate that forced mediation isn't a real option at this point.

[BBQ&Beer]

Seems its done. No ruling for a couple of weeks.