NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

I have to do a retract of my "certainty" that it won't make it past a motion to dismiss. The omnibus settlement apparently contained a clause indicating that the NFLPA gave up all claims "known and unknown" relating to claims of collusion. I am pretty certain that this is a broadly read clause and it is certainly what the NFL will hang its hat on.


I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply because the fact that the fines were levied AFTER the signing of the CBA, so the blanket statement on past collusion doesn't apply to what appears to be collusion after the CBA.

But anyway, collusion is a legal matter that goes beyond contract law. You can't sign away your right to expose illegal activities.

Well, unless you work for Major League Baseball.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply because the fact that the fines were levied AFTER the signing of the CBA, so the blanket statement on past collusion doesn't apply to what appears to be collusion after the CBA.

.

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.

This fan also makes some decent points:
Nice find.

I'm looking at the docket of the White lawsuit:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/min...cv00906/57169/

I see a Stipulation of Dismissal on August 4. Then I see what seems to be a court ordered dismissal on August 11.

There seems to be 2 conflicting views. The NFLPA says Judge Doty rejected the stipulation and ordered the dismissal using narrower language. The NFL says the stipulation was valid and the court order was simply an administrative note. It's hard to know which one it is, but Judge Doty is the same judge for this new collusion lawsuit.

Perhaps, the answer lies in the fact that the broad language is conspicuously missing from the CBA. In the previous CBA, the stipulation was incorporated by reference into the CBA. This didn't happen in the new CBA, which uses the narrower language, so that might be a sign that the NFLPA is correct.

Let's assume the stipulation is valid. The "all unknown claims" language is definitely binding if the NFLPA intentionally agreed on a settlement for all unknown claims. If you look at the docket, the White case was filed in 1992, and the NFLPA takes any chance they can get to reopen it. That makes it hard to argue that the NFLPA specifically meant "all unknown claims", i.e. any possible collusion claim.

The "unknown claims" language does not bar a claim, if it can be shown that the unknown claims were not within the contemplation of the parties when the settlement was agreed upon. The question is: At the time of the settlement, could the NFLPA have contemplated the collusion in question?

That basically goes back to what I said in my previous post. Are the current collusion claims related to the collusion claims from the Brady or White lawsuits?

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.I can't find that phrase in the new CBA as it relates to collusion charges. Maybe it's in a later agreement?

(darnit can't post link for another 9 posts, sorry)

There's plenty of legaleze in the new CBA that the NFL can't be sued for much of anything, lol. (Section 2 pg. 7). But there may be an opening in (Section A. pg 8.) to sue the NFL for collusion that is *not* "prior to 2011".

I think the actions taken in 2012 by the Commissioner, EMC, and owners' meeting to punish the Skins and Cowboys; is collusion that the NFLPA can sue against. Even if the Skins and Cows won't.

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.

No, This decision to penalize teams was arrived at after the CBA, so signing off on past collusion (even if enforceable), doesn't cover something the did since that time.

To think that if Mara and the rest of the of the NFL owners had not been bitchy about the Redskins/Cowboys using the uncapped year to unload contracts they would have avoided this whole mess.

To think that if Mara and the rest of the of the NFL owners had not been bitchy about the Redskins/Cowboys using the uncapped year to unload contracts they would have avoided this whole mess.

I thought the Jenkins article was a good one. This is Kabuki theater designed to make DeMaurice Smith look like he's standing up for the players against the owners.

To be clear, the NFLPA has:

signed a written statement agreeing to waive all claims re: contract practices in 2010
Signed off on the NFL punishing four teams to get D. Smith re-elected
Claimed that punishing four teams wasn't evidence of collusion but that blogger opinion of that punishment is (because if the actual punishment were proof, they obviously approved it)
Claimed there was a secret $123m cap, despite that googling "nfl team salary 2010" will show that 16 of 32 teams were over that number.
Claims that the league is selectively punishing the #1,2,3 & 8 spenders in 2010 but not #4,5,6,&7


They're going back on their agreement, and they're making up ridiculous arguments to get "NFLPA Sues NFL for $1 Billon" as a headline.

I thought the Jenkins article was a good one. This is Kabuki theater designed to make DeMaurice Smith look like he's standing up for the players against the owners.

To be clear, the NFLPA has:

signed a written statement agreeing to waive all claims re: contract practices in 2010
Signed off on the NFL punishing four teams to get D. Smith re-elected
Claimed that punishing four teams wasn't evidence of collusion but that blogger opinion of that punishment is (because if the actual punishment were proof, they obviously approved it)
Claimed there was a secret $123m cap, despite that googling "nfl team salary 2010" will show that 16 of 32 teams were over that number.
Claims that the league is selectively punishing the #1,2,3 & 8 spenders in 2010 but not #4,5,6,&7


They're going back on their agreement, and they're making up ridiculous arguments to get "NFLPA Sues NFL for $1 Billon" as a headline.

1 disagreement and 1 question -

I disagree about your blogger statement. The nflpa doesn't rely on bloggers for proof, but the comments that goodell and mara made that served as the basis for the blogs. Many proofs have been given that the accepting of reallocation isn't proof, but explicit statements by the commissioner and the chairman of the nflmc may be.

The question:
Why put on Kabuki theater when there is no need? DSmith has already been elected and noone was going to kick him out anytime soon.


I don't think their statements are ridiculous, but they will have to get past that waiver before any merits are ever looked at.

To think that if Mara and the rest of the of the NFL owners had not been bitchy about the Redskins/Cowboys using the uncapped year to unload contracts they would have avoided this whole mess.

I'm sure some of the owners are saying Mara we told you let it go, but OH NO not you, you had to open your BIG mouth.

1 disagreement and 1 question -

I disagree about your blogger statement. The nflpa doesn't rely on bloggers for proof, but the comments that goodell and mara made that served as the basis for the blogs. Many proofs have been given that the accepting of reallocation isn't proof, but explicit statements by the commissioner and the chairman of the nflmc may be.

The question:
Why put on Kabuki theater when there is no need? DSmith has already been elected and noone was going to kick him out anytime soon.


I don't think their statements are ridiculous, but they will have to get past that waiver before any merits are ever looked at.

What they're trying to avoid is this line of discussion:

"If you say the League had a secret salary cap, and you believe that the League punishing 4 teams for violating that secret cap is wrong, why did you approve the punishment and actually actively help the League punish those teams?"

"Uh, we didn't ask why the League was punishing the teams - we thought it was for something else."

"Really?"

"OK, actually they were going to give us something we wanted if we helped them punish the teams - plus I wanted to be re-elected."

"So...you agreed in 2011 to waive any claims based on potential collusion 2010 as part of the new CBA, and you agreed in 2012 to help the League punish the teams for not participating in this supposed collusion, but now you're suing the League for collusion in 2010?"

"Yeah, well all that happened before March 12, 2012. We didn't know anything about what the League had been up to before we saw the league's press release and read profootballtalk.com on March 12."

Step back for a minute, and ask yourself if that's remotely believable.