2015-16 NFL Season Thread

[treeduck]

This means that LABT will be back in the Confidence Pool this year! :hail:

[KenJennings]

Führer Goodell must get his way...

 

The oligarchy of American sports needs some new competition. The way that the commissioners (across most of our professional sports) act as totalitarian tyrants is getting out of hand. The public has invested too much trust into people who's real importance to society is virtually zero, and the subsequent inflation of ego is now at a boiling point.

 

Ridiculous.

Edited April 25, 2016 by KenJennings

[Presto-digitation]

Führer Goodell must get his way...

 

The oligarchy of American sports needs some new competition. The way that the commissioners (across most of our professional sports) act as totalitarian tyrants is getting out of hand. The public has invested too much trust into people who's real importance to society is virtually zero, and the subsequent inflation of ego is now at a boiling point.

 

Ridiculous.

 

The court is simply clarifying that based on the CBA the Commish is within his rights to levy such a penalty. They should have never collectively bargained it if they suspected it would lead to the Commissioner having too much power, which certainly they had to have considered. How many lawyers on behalf of the players poured over this when they last agreed to a CBA...? ;) So basically they don't mind giving him this status, they just don't ever want him to be able to use it. :D

 

From what I understand Brady's only hope now is the US Supreme Court who will likely never take the case. Time to eat your crow, Tom.

[KenJennings]

The court is simply clarifying that based on the CBA the Commish is within his rights to levy such a penalty. They should have never collectively bargained it if they suspected it would lead to the Commissioner having too much power, which certainly they had to have considered. How many lawyers on behalf of the players poured over this when they last agreed to a CBA...? ;) So basically they don't mind giving him this status, they just don't ever want him to be able to use it. :D

 

I would say the argument, one that is still very much valid, is that the power Goodell exercised was beyond what was bargained.

 

And of the four judges who've heard the case, two of them agree with that argument.

[Presto-digitation]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Presto-digitation

[KenJennings]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Yes, that was based on two judge's interpretation of the CBA. I doubt the players association shared that interpretation, and I'm sure they probably saw things more like the other two federal judges that have interpreted the same agreement.

[Presto-digitation]

You win some you lose some...

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Ahhhhh the 2015-16 NFL season refuses to go away lmao = :LMAO: = :laughing guy:

[laughedatbytime]

Brady's suspension reinstated....

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Like times infinity!

[HemiBeers]

Now let's get this damn draft over with so we can start bitching about our team's picks.

[Rick N. Backer]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

[laughedatbytime]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

Guilty as f**k. And now Golden Boy has to actually suffer consequences for his actions. :rfl: Maybe his pal Trump can pardon him, they share a sense of scruples.

 

Impeach that idiot hack Berman!

Edited April 26, 2016 by laughedatbytime

[LedRush]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

 

The two judges that matter (individually) said the evidence against Brady was compelling and that Brady's explanation for destroying his phone made no sense, plus (collectively) that the process was fine under the law. Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

[Rick N. Backer]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

Guilty as f**k. And now Golden Boy has to actually suffer consequences for his actions. :rfl: Maybe his pal Trump can pardon him, they share a sense of scruples.

 

Impeach that idiot hack Berman!

 

Your last line is exhibit A for why judges should not be elected by the people.

[Rick N. Backer]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

 

The two judges that matter (individually) said the evidence against Brady was compelling and that Brady's explanation for destroying his phone made no sense, plus (collectively) that the process was fine under the law. Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

As an aside, it is amazing the NFLPA is so weak it would agree to have the commissioner hand out discipline, AND serve as the "neutral" in a dispute over discipline.

[KenJennings]

Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

:laughing guy:

 

I've never been afraid to define my position in unfriendly terms. And I think I've consistently supported the role of the state in interpreting and enforcing the terms of a disputed contract. I am absolutely a statist in the opinion that we should have civil courts.

 

And in this case, we have two federal judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFL's way, and two judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFLPA's way. When parties of good conscience (or Goodell) disagree with each other, the courts need to settle it. Unfortunately, at this moment, the evenly split disagreement falls in the NFL's favor given the due process. But that does not change the fact that it's a very tenuous interpretation that allows Goodell's exercise of a contentious clause in that agreement.

 

But to your point: the way I see it, Goodell violated the terms of the CBA, and yes; the state should intervene to correct that. Unfortunately, two out of four federal judges disagree with me, and that's enough to lose the argument.

Edited April 26, 2016 by KenJennings

[LedRush]

The court is simply clarifying that based on the CBA the Commish is within his rights to levy such a penalty. They should have never collectively bargained it if they suspected it would lead to the Commissioner having too much power, which certainly they had to have considered. How many lawyers on behalf of the players poured over this when they last agreed to a CBA...? ;) So basically they don't mind giving him this status, they just don't ever want him to be able to use it. :D

 

I would say the argument, one that is still very much valid, is that the power Goodell exercised was beyond what was bargained.

 

And of the four judges who've heard the case, two of them agree with that argument.

 

The people I work with and have worked with are quite exasperated at this line of argument. Arbitration clauses greatly reduce the costs of doing business in many ways, and that 2 judges are so willing to distort them to further insert government oversight into private transactions may have a chilling affect on business. It's good for litigators, but bad for virtually everyone else.

[LedRush]

Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

:laughing guy:

 

I've never been afraid to define my position in unfriendly terms. And I think I've consistently supported the role of the state in interpreting and enforcing the terms of a disputed contract. I am absolutely a statist in the opinion that we should have civil courts.

 

And in this case, we have two federal judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFL's way, and two judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFLPA's way. When parties of good conscience (or Goodell) disagree with each other, the courts need to settle it. Unfortunately, at this moment, the evenly split disagreement falls in the NFL's favor given the due process. But that does not change the fact that it's a very tenuous interpretation that allows Goodell's exercise of a contentious clause in that agreement.

 

But to your point: the way I see it, Goodell violated the terms of the CBA, and yes; the state should intervene to correct that. Unfortunately, two out of four federal judges disagree with me, and that's enough to lose the argument.

 

The whole point of these things is to keep the government out of it. If you don't like the arbitration method, don't agree to it. I certainly would have advised my clients not to agree to it. But see my post above for the biggest reason to get the government out of this shit show.

[LedRush]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

 

The two judges that matter (individually) said the evidence against Brady was compelling and that Brady's explanation for destroying his phone made no sense, plus (collectively) that the process was fine under the law. Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

As an aside, it is amazing the NFLPA is so weak it would agree to have the commissioner hand out discipline, AND serve as the "neutral" in a dispute over discipline.

 

I agree on that part!

[laughedatbytime]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

Guilty as f**k. And now Golden Boy has to actually suffer consequences for his actions. :rfl: Maybe his pal Trump can pardon him, they share a sense of scruples.

 

Impeach that idiot hack Berman!

 

Your last line is exhibit A for why judges should not be elected by the people.

The fact that a hack like Berman could rise beyond judging Top Chef is Exhibit A of why judges shouldn't be appointed by politicians.

[KenJennings]

Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

:laughing guy:

 

I've never been afraid to define my position in unfriendly terms. And I think I've consistently supported the role of the state in interpreting and enforcing the terms of a disputed contract. I am absolutely a statist in the opinion that we should have civil courts.

 

And in this case, we have two federal judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFL's way, and two judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFLPA's way. When parties of good conscience (or Goodell) disagree with each other, the courts need to settle it. Unfortunately, at this moment, the evenly split disagreement falls in the NFL's favor given the due process. But that does not change the fact that it's a very tenuous interpretation that allows Goodell's exercise of a contentious clause in that agreement.

 

But to your point: the way I see it, Goodell violated the terms of the CBA, and yes; the state should intervene to correct that. Unfortunately, two out of four federal judges disagree with me, and that's enough to lose the argument.

 

The whole point of these things is to keep the government out of it. If you don't like the arbitration method, don't agree to it. I certainly would have advised my clients not to agree to it. But see my post above for the biggest reason to get the government out of this shit show.

 

And when you disagree about exactly what the stated arbitration method is?

 

When the agreement calls for impartial arbitration, and then the arbitration is clearly not impartial, what is the proper recourse?

[Rick N. Backer]

The court is simply clarifying that based on the CBA the Commish is within his rights to levy such a penalty. They should have never collectively bargained it if they suspected it would lead to the Commissioner having too much power, which certainly they had to have considered. How many lawyers on behalf of the players poured over this when they last agreed to a CBA...? ;) So basically they don't mind giving him this status, they just don't ever want him to be able to use it. :D

 

I would say the argument, one that is still very much valid, is that the power Goodell exercised was beyond what was bargained.

 

And of the four judges who've heard the case, two of them agree with that argument.

 

The people I work with and have worked with are quite exasperated at this line of argument. Arbitration clauses greatly reduce the costs of doing business in many ways, and that 2 judges are so willing to distort them to further insert government oversight into private transactions may have a chilling affect on business. It's good for litigators, but bad for virtually everyone else.

 

I agree that parties to an agreement use arb clauses to minimize the cost of dispute resolution. But would you say that there can or should be no mechanism for review of the propriety of an arbitration proceeding? Agree or not, wasn't that NFLPA's argument, that Goodell conducted the arbitration unfairly, not simply that he was wrong?

[Rick N. Backer]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

Guilty as f**k. And now Golden Boy has to actually suffer consequences for his actions. :rfl: Maybe his pal Trump can pardon him, they share a sense of scruples.

 

Impeach that idiot hack Berman!

 

Your last line is exhibit A for why judges should not be elected by the people.

The fact that a hack like Berman could rise beyond judging Top Chef is Exhibit A of why judges shouldn't be appointed by politicians.

 

Pump the brakes. He made a decision you don't like. An appellate court tipped him, with the chief judge, voting to affirm.

 

In term limits discussions, you rightly point out that ultimately the voters are to blame for our elected officials. Why on Earth should we swell their ranks?

[laughedatbytime]

"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumcised and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings."

 

"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

 

In short, the appellate court's message was simple: If you don't like it, why did you collectively bargain for it?

 

Interesting. You quote from the decision where the court acknowledges that it doesn't care about the merits of the dispute, only whether the district court showed Goodell's ruling the expansive deference the law requires. And yet somehow Brady is "eating crow"? After all that's come out since then?

 

I've said it before. It's sad to see people cheer for the elevation of process uber alles. Half the federal judges who considered the arbitration proceedings thought they were conducted in a way that was unfair to the point of being unlawful. The other half have emphasized that the propriety of Goodell's actions are virtually irrelevant to their analysis. And virtually every review of the actual evidence that has come out since January 2015 suggests Goodell and Wells got it wrong.

Guilty as f**k. And now Golden Boy has to actually suffer consequences for his actions. :rfl: Maybe his pal Trump can pardon him, they share a sense of scruples.

 

Impeach that idiot hack Berman!

 

Your last line is exhibit A for why judges should not be elected by the people.

The fact that a hack like Berman could rise beyond judging Top Chef is Exhibit A of why judges shouldn't be appointed by politicians.

 

Pump the brakes. He made a decision you don't like. An appellate court tipped him, with the chief judge, voting to affirm.

 

In term limits discussions, you rightly point out that ultimately the voters are to blame for our elected officials. Why on Earth should we swell their ranks?

 

OK, Democratic politicians shouldn't be allowed to pick judges. :)

[LedRush]

Let's try and be honest with the facts before statists like KJ look to undermine the agreements made by two private parties based on misinformation.

 

:laughing guy:

 

I've never been afraid to define my position in unfriendly terms. And I think I've consistently supported the role of the state in interpreting and enforcing the terms of a disputed contract. I am absolutely a statist in the opinion that we should have civil courts.

 

And in this case, we have two federal judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFL's way, and two judges who've interpreted the CBA the NFLPA's way. When parties of good conscience (or Goodell) disagree with each other, the courts need to settle it. Unfortunately, at this moment, the evenly split disagreement falls in the NFL's favor given the due process. But that does not change the fact that it's a very tenuous interpretation that allows Goodell's exercise of a contentious clause in that agreement.

 

But to your point: the way I see it, Goodell violated the terms of the CBA, and yes; the state should intervene to correct that. Unfortunately, two out of four federal judges disagree with me, and that's enough to lose the argument.

 

The whole point of these things is to keep the government out of it. If you don't like the arbitration method, don't agree to it. I certainly would have advised my clients not to agree to it. But see my post above for the biggest reason to get the government out of this shit show.

 

And when you disagree about exactly what the stated arbitration method is?

 

When the agreement calls for impartial arbitration, and then the arbitration is clearly not impartial, what is the proper recourse?

 

Whatever the agreement says it is...in this case Goodell. The courts are no better and are not agreed upon. Adding the government into private agreements which dictate the rules for the agreement is rarely a good idea, which is probably why my colleagues and I are so shocked at the behavior of Berman.