Football Coaches Join Players In Fighting Lockout - Page 3

listopencil · 12:28 AM

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

Brock · 05-26-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

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.

Which coaches are a part of it? Every single member of NFLCA.

listopencil · 05-26-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

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.

Wow, you obviously haven't read anything past the OP, in which you failed to find the link to the original article. Let me lay this out for you:

1) A writer at "It's All Over Fat Man!" posted an opinion piece regarding a recent article... http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/bron...ghting-lockout

2)...by Albert Breer, a reporter for the NFL Network, which was posted posted on NFL.com...http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-labor-dispute

3)...in which he references a legal document that is available to the public...http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

4)...filed by the National Football League Coaches Association as a "friend of the court"...http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti.../amicus+curiae

Do you understand what is going on now?

listopencil · 05-26-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

As I understand it this shows that the NFLCA has a legal right to represent NFL coaches. I'm sure there may be individual coaches or even entire coaching staffs that decide to distance themselves from this position and/or declare that the NFLCA does not represent them in this situation. That would be the way to go, because otherwise agreement is implied.

listopencil · 05-26-2011, 03:49 PM

Here you go:

Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...75988/29598721
Posted on: May 26, 2011 4:36 pm
Edited on: May 26, 2011 4:56 pm
Posted by Will Brinson

On Wednesday, the NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief in support of the players' request to lift the lockout.

On Thursday, the Washington Redskins' coaching staff issued an interesting statement in which they renounce said brief.

"We stand united with our ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter," the letter reads, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network. "We, like everybody else, are hopeful we can return to playing football. ... Our former representative, Kirk Olivadotti, is no longer with the organization & no member of our ... staff was consulted."

According to Breer, 17 members of the Redskins staff signed the letter, though it did not include the signature of head coach Mike Shanahan, who is apparently considered part of "management."

The basic takeaway from the letter appears to be that the Redskins staff was none too pleased about the NFLCA filing their brief without checking first with the organization's coaches.

But then again, no coaches specifically attached their name to the NFLCA's brief, so perhaps this is just the first of many letters to leak in the media courtesy of coaching staffs.

Mr. Laz · 05-26-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I also tend to think this is going to be huge in the court of public opinion for the players. Players are viewed as selfish and overpaid, and I personally believe that's largely out of jealousy because they get paid to play a game they love. Coaches are a lot more similar to us as workers, and I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that they're overpaid if they do good work.

**** off and die

bowener · 05-26-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Here you go:

Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief

Dan Snyder wrote that brief himself.

listopencil · 05-26-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener

Dan Snyder wrote that brief himself.

That would not surprise me.

bowener · 05-26-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

That would not surprise me.

He has to approve all Skins related articles before being published, at least I am almost positive I read that and am not making it up.

He makes Al Davis look hands off. And competent!

vailpass · 05-26-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Here you go:

Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...75988/29598721
Posted on: May 26, 2011 4:36 pm
Edited on: May 26, 2011 4:56 pm
Posted by Will Brinson

On Wednesday, the NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief in support of the players' request to lift the lockout.

On Thursday, the Washington Redskins' coaching staff issued an interesting statement in which they renounce said brief.

"We stand united with our ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter," the letter reads, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network. "We, like everybody else, are hopeful we can return to playing football. ... Our former representative, Kirk Olivadotti, is no longer with the organization & no member of our ... staff was consulted."

According to Breer, 17 members of the Redskins staff signed the letter, though it did not include the signature of head coach Mike Shanahan,
who is apparently considered part of "management."

The basic takeaway from the letter appears to be that the Redskins staff was none too pleased about the NFLCA filing their brief without checking first with the organization's coaches.

But then again, no coaches specifically attached their name to the NFLCA's brief, so perhaps this is just the first of many letters to leak in the media courtesy of coaching staffs.

Exactly why I was waiting. Do you agree this sheds a whole new light on the OP?

kstater · 05-26-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener

He has to approve all Skins related articles before being published, at least I am almost positive I read that and am not making it up.

Yeah, there's no possible way this is true.

Okie_Apparition · 05-26-2011, 05:30 PM

Going that little extra for the coach can be the difference in winning & this should play well with the players. Wouldn't surprise me to see alot of the owners okay with this for that reason. The lockout end is near

**The Franchise** · 05-26-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

**** off and die

Great response.

listopencil · 05-26-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

Exactly why I was waiting. Do you agree this sheds a whole new light on the OP?

1)This wasn't reported by a few "jack-legged slap dicks" as you said, it was reported by credible sources as I linked.

2) There is no list of names that you were waiting for, it was presented by an organization that had a legal right to do so as I kept telling you.

3) This isn't something to be blown off as you implied, this really is a strong statement. Strong enough that one entire coaching staff (other than the Head Coach) felt the need to clarify their position in disagreement with the original brief.

A whole new light? No, it shows exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Every step of the way I've posted links that show you to be incorrect.

**kysirsoze** · 05-26-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

1)This wasn't reported by a few "jack-legged slap dicks" as you said, it was reported by credible sources as I linked.

2) There is no list of names that you were waiting for, it was presented by an organization that had a legal right to do so as I kept telling you.

3) This isn't something to be blown off as you implied, this really is a strong statement. Strong enough that one entire coaching staff (other than the Head Coach) felt the need to clarify their position in disagreement with the original brief.

A whole new light? No, it shows exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Every step of the way I've posted links that show you to be incorrect.

Plus, I'll believe the Redskins coaching staff is against it when Shanahan makes a statement of his own. This looks like Snyder PR to me.

(unless I missed said statement in which case, withdrawn.)

Brock · 05-26-2011, 06:37 PM

I bet Cowboys coaches "release" a similar "statement".

05-26-2011, 12:20 AM
listopencil Immanentize The Eschaton Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In Partibus Infidelium Casino cash: $855880	Coaches Join Players In Fighting Lockout 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 Last edited by listopencil; 05-26-2011 at 12:28 AM..
Posts: 56,228

05-26-2011, 03:49 PM	#34
listopencil Immanentize The Eschaton Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In Partibus Infidelium Casino cash: $855880	Here you go: Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...75988/29598721 Posted on: May 26, 2011 4:36 pm Edited on: May 26, 2011 4:56 pm Posted by Will Brinson On Wednesday, the NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief in support of the players' request to lift the lockout. On Thursday, the Washington Redskins' coaching staff issued an interesting statement in which they renounce said brief. "We stand united with our ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter," the letter reads, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network. "We, like everybody else, are hopeful we can return to playing football. ... Our former representative, Kirk Olivadotti, is no longer with the organization & no member of our ... staff was consulted." According to Breer, 17 members of the Redskins staff signed the letter, though it did not include the signature of head coach Mike Shanahan, who is apparently considered part of "management." The basic takeaway from the letter appears to be that the Redskins staff was none too pleased about the NFLCA filing their brief without checking first with the organization's coaches. But then again, no coaches specifically attached their name to the NFLCA's brief, so perhaps this is just the first of many letters to leak in the media courtesy of coaching staffs. __________________ *While you live, shine. Have no grief at all. Life exists only for a short while and time demands its toll.*
Posts: 56,228

05-26-2011, 05:30 PM	#41
Okie_Apparition Banned Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: floatin cobwebs n the sky Casino cash: $10004900	Going that little extra for the coach can be the difference in winning & this should play well with the players. Wouldn't surprise me to see alot of the owners okay with this for that reason. The lockout end is near
Posts: 7,012

05-26-2011, 06:37 PM	#45
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	I bet Cowboys coaches "release" a similar "statement".
Posts: 47,314