Daseal
03-14-2012, 02:51 PM
Would you ever trust or do business with a guy like Bill who makes an agreement with you then essentially says fu? I wouldnt.
If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.
Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.
Player_HTTR
03-14-2012, 02:53 PM
What stuff do the other owners have to lose?
Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.
skinster
03-14-2012, 03:00 PM
You are right it should have been documented but I suspect the owners decided as a group they they could trust each other which in retrospect was a mistake with Snyder in the group. Now that the other owners know DS's word is no good it will be interesting to see how they handle any future agreements either as a group or one on one with DS.
Be honest, if you made a gents agreement with me and we shook on it and gave our word and I f'd you over you'd be as mad as these guys are.
Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.
irish
03-14-2012, 03:16 PM
Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.
Huh?
irish
03-14-2012, 03:23 PM
If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.
Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.
28 other owners understood what "dont go overboard" meant. Obviously DS made the mistake of not having the boundries of "dont go overboard" defined. DS didnt see this loophole but I suspect he will learn from his mistake and fix it next time.
mooby
03-14-2012, 03:27 PM
What stuff do the other owners have to lose?
I'm not a legal expert but I would think just because the owners colluded and then blackmailed the union into agreeing on it doesn't mean they would get off scot free in the eyes of a court.
irish
03-14-2012, 03:30 PM
Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.
Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.
Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.
If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.
skinster
03-14-2012, 04:33 PM
Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.
Who would need to testify? there's no documentation of any agreement, so he doesn't need anyone to testify considering there are no rules he broke. The facts are pretty straight forward. And on a side note; nobody said he made an agreement with anyone; he was told that collusion was happening and decided not to participate. A shady move? maybe, but that's up for debate.
irish
03-14-2012, 05:16 PM
Who would need to testify? there's no documentation of any agreement, so he doesn't need anyone to testify considering there are no rules he broke. The facts are pretty straight forward. And on a side note; nobody said he made an agreement with anyone; he was told that collusion was happening and decided not to participate. A shady move? maybe, but that's up for debate.
It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.
He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?
In addition, not all agreements and contracts have to be in writing to be valid. If all parties agree to whatever has been decided and there is whats called a meeting of the minds then its a vaild contract.