Smail said:
So what if he's a lawyer? With law, there's only one thing that's certain: you will always find a lawyer to pick up your side. Why do lawyers go to supreme court to lose? If they're so smart and able to predict decisions, why didn't that lawyer just sit? Because the law is made of interpretations, and as such is never 100% predictible. Brian Burke is a lawyer, does it mean that everything he says is gold? No.
Of course not. The fact remains, I've yet to hear anyone with any legal background who understands the composition of the league that thinks that impasse is the route that the owners will take. I've heard lots of people with no clue bring it up, but no one with any legal training. The word of people who actually understand what's going on is relevant, and to be blunt, is a hell of a lot more relevant than the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the law. The opinions of the vast majority of hfboards posters on this are irrelevant. Even if they were to be end up being right, it's not because of any unique insight, or understanding of the process, it's because they got lucky. It's worthless analysis, much like that offered by most of the media.
I don't think the owners will try to get an impasse either, but to pass your word as God's is just non productive. While I do agree it's improbable, who knows how it would really end up once the process started? No one can. The rest is just babble.
I haven't heard anyone say their word is God's. I have heard people say, effectively, "My word is more relevant than yours, because I've been trained in this field and you haven't. I understand how this field works and you don't." Myself, I've been very careful not to couch what I've said in absolutes-this isn't an area about which I have great knowledge, being a) Canadian, and b) just a law student. That said, I'll put my knowledge of the law, and ability to understand what I do read about it up against anyone here who doesn't have any legal training. The fact that there isn't a single person with a legal background willing to make the case that impasse is the route for the owners to go is telling, IMO.
If we were to seek a lawyer to get a case of impasse, I'm sure we'd be able to find one who would tell you he's sure he'd win because of "x" and "y".
I don't think you'd find a lawyer who'd say he's sure of winning anything, IMO. Lawyers are as aware as anyone else that the legal process is unpredictable-look at Wetcoaster's comments. You have to be careful not to conflate the two issues as well. Winning impasse is one thing. Winning impasse, and not losing the war is another. I don't think that they can win an impasse AND win the war. If they can't do both, then it's actually irrelevant whether they can win an impasse, unless you're an academic. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the vast majority of those hung up on winning a legal impasse aren't legal academics.