Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

So, if teams are required to spend 90 percent of the salary cap in cash, wouldn't teams with a ton of dead cap space go over the cap? Or in this system would there be no such thing as dead cap space?

The lawyers get the boot, again | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/the-lawyers-get-the-boot-again/)

ESPN,The Post,USA Today,etc all saying things were going well and never mention this at all.Until this I never saw another artical on it but as it says they are gone.

ESPN,The Post,USA Today,etc all saying things were going well and never mention this at all.Until this I never saw another artical on it but as it says they are gone.

You're not looking very hard

Lockout: Talks 'almost blew up' Tuesday, source says - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines)

Ha, I was watching a baseball game on ESPN last night during the Stanley Cup intermission and saw a funny crawl on the bottom talking about "laywers kicked out", "talks almost blew up" and someone saying "it would be borderline insane to think a deal can be reached in 2 weeks".

Yesterday MORNING (Mike and Mike and ESPN Radio news), ESPN was reporting a deal was about to be drawn up and could be days until it's done.

Make up your minds! :D

the 3 billion I was talking about is the maximum in the TV Deal that Judge Doty has yet to award the players. As for damages in locking the players out, if the 8th District rules that they have the right to lock out the players, then that gives the owners leverage because no damages from a lockout would even begin to be calculated until long after some negotiated settlement is reached. Thus, the owners would not really fear damages from a future lawsuit, as much as the players would suffer from the immediacy of the no pay while locked out. Most likely damages would also be addressed as part of any settlement/agreement.

The way it sounds, although no one really knows how the 8th Circuit will decide, even listening to the "Oral Arguements" it seemed the 8th Circuit was leaning toward not lifting the "lockout" because they might not have any legal discretion to do so. So yes the "winners" if you will would be the owners. However, if the lockout extended into the regular season the 8th Circuit would or might award the players 3x the regular salary for each game and for a year that amounts to 10 Billion.

I understand what you were saying now though with the 3 Billion. Both sides have to figure out the T.V. money issue. But Judge Doty might not have to get involved if both sides include the distribution of the monies in the CBA. Which I'm betting the owners had figured would be done. If it's included and both sides agree to the split of that money then the players can drop any lawsuits they want. Doty may not even get involved.

The lawyers get the boot, again | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/the-lawyers-get-the-boot-again/)

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

on the lockout insurance issue, there really is very little damage IF, no games are missed due to a lockout, thus it is not a hard issue to resolve as part of the overall settlements. The NHL locked out their players for a year, and were not charged with irreparable harm fines. I can't see any court setting a precedent like that, but since most of this is all about threats of loss of money, I guess it could hang over the owners heads.

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

They certainly want to have DSmith in there, simply for the case that they believe he will be the Union head when and if it ever re-certifies. Last thing they want is to negotiate a new CBA/settlement with Vrabek et al, and then have DSmith convince the rank and file that it is a bad deal.

I just have one question... isn't D.Smith a lawyer? So when the owners walk into the meetings with out any lawyers to negotiate why would they want to even talk to D.Smith? He's a lawyer and would obviously look out for the players. What I'm getting at is the owners might feel like they are getting screwed if they are only being able to talk to D.Smith (lawyer) but they don't have a lawyer looking after their best interest.

D. Smith is a lawyer. But he is not wearing his lawyer hat in the proceedings. Instead, he is there as a player rep, not a legal counsel. And apparently the other day he was instrumental in calling off the lawyer dogs like Kessler.

I realize there is slipperiness in the idea that D. Smith is a lawyer but isn't a lawyer. But if he backs up the not-a-lawyer angle with actions, as he apparently has done, then there is no reason for owners to get overly ruffled.

Ha, I was watching a baseball game on ESPN last night during the Stanley Cup intermission and saw a funny crawl on the bottom talking about "laywers kicked out", "talks almost blew up" and someone saying "it would be borderline insane to think a deal can be reached in 2 weeks".

Yesterday MORNING (Mike and Mike and ESPN Radio news), ESPN was reporting a deal was about to be drawn up and could be days until it's done.

Make up your minds! :D

Scrawl? - Southern
Scroll? - Northern

lol, I'm just having fun, the lord knows I don't always use the best words either.