Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)
Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.
But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.
|
I think they don't want to sue, because that would air out too much dirty laundry. I think they'd rather eat the punishment than sue.
I think they've taken this more limited arbitration option to get the other owners to settle on a reduced punishment to make it go away.