sp6488 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 9 hours ago, Jakuvious said: Game checks are harm, but not irreparable harm. Money is pretty easily rectified after the fact. Isn't it a bit more complicated than though in that the party withholding money is not the one that benefits from his services? Cowboys pay him to play for them, a limited number of games exist. The league is the one preventing him from playing and making him lose the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 minute ago, sp6488 said: Isn't it a bit more complicated than though in that the party withholding money is not the one that benefits from his services? Cowboys pay him to play for them, a limited number of games exist. The league is the one preventing him from playing and making him lose the money. The owners are the league. They agree to this as part of the partnership agreement in the formation of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Just now, mse326 said: The owners are the league. They agree to this as part of the partnership agreement in the formation of the league. I understand that. I'm just wondering if it's not a bit more complicated with respect to money being made whole in this situation because if he were to be suspended, lose game checks, then win his suit, who would be responsible to pay him? The cowboys? They didn't get a contribution from him for those six games? The league? That doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Just now, sp6488 said: I understand that. I'm just wondering if it's not a bit more complicated with respect to money being made whole in this situation because if he were to be suspended, lose game checks, then win his suit, who would be responsible to pay him? The cowboys? They didn't get a contribution from him for those six games? The league? That doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. It's not complicated. It's almost certainly set out in the partnership agreement and to the extent it isn't the fight is between the team and the league not with him. He will get his money. Therefore it isn't irreperable harm. It really is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 minute ago, mse326 said: It's not complicated. It's almost certainly set out in the partnership agreement and to the extent it isn't the fight is between the team and the league not with him. He will get his money. Therefore it isn't irreperable harm. It really is that simple. Yep, the last bit is the key. Loss of money is never going to be irreperable harm because getting someone money they've lost out on is specifically what civil courts are designed to do. If the thing that harmed you can be fixed by simply handing you a pile of money, then there's no need to put that harm on hold. You go through the legal process and if you win, you get handed a pile of money. That "makes you whole". Ergo, your harm was not, by definition, irreparable. Harm can only be irreparable if giving you a pile of money after the fact can't fix it. Missing out on game checks is exactly the type of thing that getting handed a pile of money can fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Why do I get the feeling this still isn't done? Particularly when stuff this is going to give Zeke's team at least grounds for a new hearing appeal: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amazingandre Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, The LBC said: Why do I get the feeling this still isn't done? Particularly when stuff this is going to give Zeke's team at least grounds for a new hearing appeal: Quote Would a reasonable mind conclude that Judge Failla’s impartiality is impaired by the past and apparently ongoing business relationship between the NFL and Proskauer Rose, especially when the very document at issue in the case is the document Proskauer Rose helped the NFL craft? Well isn't that a powerful little statement/question. I love the drama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, sp6488 said: I understand that. I'm just wondering if it's not a bit more complicated with respect to money being made whole in this situation because if he were to be suspended, lose game checks, then win his suit, who would be responsible to pay him? The cowboys? They didn't get a contribution from him for those six games? The league? That doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. It's all laid out in league rules, undoubtedly. But in the end, none of that really matters in the court's eyes. All that matters from a financial perspective to them is that if he's suspended and then the suspension is removed, he will still get paid. As long as someone still pays him, it doesn't matter, because that means the harm isn't irreparable. If it seems like that's unfair to the Cowboys, that doesn't matter as far as the case is concerned because the Cowboys aren't the ones appealing. Harm to the Cowboys is irrelevant. And in the end, the Cowboys paying him is more or less the same as the league paying him anyways. Revenue sharing and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Was her husband involved in the actual drafting of the document? If not, I don't see any conflict. And if her husband was, I honestly still don't see the conflict but at least there is some semblance of a colorable argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, fretgod99 said: Was her husband involved in the actual drafting of the document? If not, I don't see any conflict. And if her husband was, I honestly still don't see the conflict but at least there is some semblance of a colorable argument. But what about pillow talk? OBJECTION: SUSTAINED, CASE DISMISSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Phire said: Straight from her opinion: "On the issue of irreparable harm, as noted in the preceding section, the harms identified by the NFLPA are either speculative, insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief, and/or outweighed by the concerns identified by the NFLMC." What you said is one part of the analysis. I understand you won't let your conclusion go, but I have the judge on my side here. Judge Failla puts the case law back on track where it should be—millionaire athletes taking a vacation isn't the type of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to protect. The NFLPA should negotiate a better CBA if they want to avoid this type of situation. Sadly for us fans, they WILL negotiate hard the next time, and it may take a long, long time to reach a resolution. It's very hypocritical for you to take this stance all things considered. If I were writing the opinion, I'd have found irreparable harm and had ample support for it. Anyone who has been part of a team knows that you can't take that aspect out of it. Further, you can't ignore team successes in the NFL when they are often also considered individual successes. Personally, I think she got it wrong, but that's the reality of law. In borderline cases, you can justify your ruling no matterr which way you go. However, I think it's noteworthy that she offered no case law for her conclusions on the irreparable harm part of the opinion and spent time distinguishing the applicable case law. That case law is not binding, so she did nothing wrong, but it also illustrates that she's out on an island here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 hours ago, jrry32 said: Further, you can't ignore team successes in the NFL Sure you can it has nothing to do with anything. He isn't harmed by the team not having him. I don't know why you and other keeps keep making ipsa dixit statements like the NFL, or sports in general, is different. It's not. You are not harmed by not working. You are only harmed by losing the pay which is easily reparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Just now, mse326 said: Sure you can it has nothing to do with anything. He isn't harmed by the team not having him. I don't know why you and other keeps keep making ipsa dixit statements like the NFL, or sports in general, is different. It's not. You are not harmed by not working. You are only harmed by losing the pay which is easily reparable. He is harmed by the team not having him. I'm assuming you've played on a team during your life. It matters to you. I've seen people devastated by losses. I've seen people devastated by not being able to go out and help their team. Let's say the Cowboys have a shot at the playoffs and Super Bowl this year (which they do). It's obviously going to devastate Zeke if his suspension results in him not having a chance at either one this year. Careers are short. Dan Marino never got a shot at a second Super Bowl and retired without winning one. Do you think that was some unimportant, trivial thing to him? Sports are absolutely different. And you're full of excrement if you're trying to argue otherwise. You're not about to tell me that a cashier at Publix is as emotionally invested in his job as Tom Brady is in his. Football players, like other athletes, are harmed by not working. Hell, if those six games ended up costing Elliott the Hall of Fame, are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't harmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, jrry32 said: It matters to you That doesn't make it a cognizable harm. If that is the case then players would be allowed to file a claim if the team doesn't play them even if they pay them. Not playing is not a legal harm. Do you really think player 53 on the roster who is inactive every game is suffering a harm? 7 minutes ago, jrry32 said: You're not about to tell me that a cashier at Publix is as emotionally invested in his job as Tom Brady is in his No I won't, though I'm sure there are other workers that are as invested as athletes. But I will unequivocally say that is legally irrelevant. It is not a harm. There is no reason to treat it differently than you would any other. Really liking your job doesn't make it a harm to not be allowed to do it. 7 minutes ago, jrry32 said: Hell, if those six games ended up costing Elliott the Hall of Fame, are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't harmed? Harm still has to be more than speculative before asking if irreparable or not, and this is beyond speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Just now, mse326 said: That doesn't make it a cognizable harm. If that is the case then players would be allowed to file a claim if the team doesn't play them even if they pay them. Not playing is not a legal harm. They would still have to prove wrongful conduct. That absolutely could be a cognizable harm if there was wrongful conduct involved. Let's say that a team refused to play a player based on his sexual orientation or race. That would be wrongful conduct and not getting to play is harming his career. That should absolutely make for a valid cause of action. Quote No I won't, though I'm sure there are other workers that are as invested as athletes. But I will unequivocally say that is legally irrelevant. It is not a harm. There is no reason to treat it differently than you would any other. Really liking your job doesn't make it a harm to not be allowed to do it. And I will unequivocally say that I don't agree with you and would not rule in your favor on this issue if I were a judge. This is something more than just enjoying your job. It's denying someone some of the benefits of the job. Benefits that can't be replaced with wages. Quote Harm still has to be more than speculative before asking if irreparable or not, and this is beyond speculative. What about it is speculative? How is it any more speculative than any other intangible, emotional harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.