Coaches Join Players In Fighting Lockout

[listopencil]

NFL Coaches Association has filed an amicus brief supporting players written and filed by a Duke law professor, Barak D. Richman. The coaches seem to be strongly supporting the players, and claim that the NFL is ‘avoiding’ the Sherman Act.

The coaches - both head and assistant - go on to say that "New coaches especially need time with players, which is why league rules normally permit new coaching staffs to organize two additional minicamps with players over the summer." It goes on to point out that, "This offseason, NFL teams hired an unusually large number of new head coaches with no previous head coaching experience, each of whom-along with their assistants-face a steep learning curve & desperately need this time to prepare their teams." The coaches then cite irreparable harm, and say that: "Damages would not be an adequate remedy for NFL coaches who suffer from the NFL’s illegal group boycott." The coaches' brief also includes charts that show the uptick in coaches fired after two years, and after three years from 2001 to '10.

While this is hardly a major game-changer in the situation, it does show that the head coaches are willing to challenge the statements of the owners in court. Increasingly, fans are turning against both sides, wondering why they can’t split up $9 billion. The coaches are showing a desire for reason and to be given a chance to be permitted to do their jobs, and I fully support that position, and hope that it brings some small level of order to this increasingly pointless circumstance.

Doc Bear May 25, 2011 8:23 PM
http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/bron...ghting-lockout

[MOhillbilly]

-rolls eyes-

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by vailpass

I didn't mean to impugn the fatman. Maybe I should have said "confirmed by a second, major source".

You didn't click on the link in the OP. This is a blurb reported on Fat Man, taken from an article written by Albert Breer of the NFL network, posted on NFL.com. Is that credible enough for you?

[listopencil]

Citing job security, coaches side with players in labor dispute

• 
• By Albert Breer NFL Network
• NFL Network Reporter
• Published: May 25, 2011 at 05:40 p.m.
• Updated: May 26, 2011 at 02:36 p.m.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-labor-dispute

[Mike in SW-MO]

Before you start passing out awards for valor, notice that there are no coach's names associated with this article.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Mike in SW-MO

Before you start passing out awards for valor, notice that there are no coach's names associated with this article.

Why would there be?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by listopencil

You didn't click on the link in the OP. This is a blurb reported on Fat Man, taken from an article written by Albert Breer of the NFL network, posted on NFL.com. Is that credible enough for you?

Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.

Translation: I don't want this to be true!!! Noooooo!

[JD10367]

The NFLCA represents the coaches. Thus, I doubt they would make this move without the majority of the coaches signing off on it, no? And few coaches have the clout to come out in public and side with the players (Belichick, for example) so there's really no point to naming names.

[bowener]

BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!?!?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.

Dude. I like you but you are acting like a ****ing moron:


BRIEF FILED - AMICUS BRIEF filed by National Football League Coaches Association w/service 05/25/2011 , 18 PDF pages, No Addendum. [3791315] [11-1898]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html



It's an official document and it's part of public record.

[listopencil]

For what it's worth:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti.../amicus+curiae

Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.


I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But it looks to me like the National Football League Coaches Association operates with the written consent of NFL coaches, so asking for the names of particular coaches is foolish.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Brock

Translation: I don't want this to be true!!! Noooooo!

Not in the slightest. Why would this have any impact on me? I want to see what specific coaches are part of this action before commenting. Is it every head coach in the league? Is it a couple of assistant special teams coordinators? Details make a difference.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Dude. I like you but you are acting like a ****ing moron:


BRIEF FILED - AMICUS BRIEF filed by National Football League Coaches Association w/service 05/25/2011 , 18 PDF pages, No Addendum. [3791315] [11-1898]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html



It's an official document and it's part of public record.

If laying back until you have gathered some hard data is wrong I don't want to be right. Forgive me if I look to sources other than a few jack-legged slap dicks on one intraweb message board.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by bowener

BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!?!?

Quite literally nothing.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by JD10367

The NFLCA represents the coaches. Thus, I doubt they would make this move without the majority of the coaches signing off on it, no? And few coaches have the clout to come out in public and side with the players (Belichick, for example) so there's really no point to naming names.

And??? lol~