Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Monkeydad;918474]The Goodell Dictatorship with no regard to actual rules is getting annoying.


Don't blame those bringing these lawsuits (except the concussion claimants like Chip Lohmiller)...blame the man who is making these lawsuits absolutely necessary. I think Vilma may have a case. What was done to us and Dallas was completely absurd.

.[/quote]

I don't know how this is going to work out but people need to sepereate this from the actuall runnning of the league ,one is business ...let it go to court.Vilma has more to do with the way the NFL is being run and yes that is Goodell and it's morons like Vilma and Greg Williams that screw it up and on the other side you have the players who want to sue for billions becuase of concussions yet will take the NFL to court for making them wear thigh pads and knee pads and bitch about making the game safer but sue later when they can't walk and blame the NFL.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918607]There is ZERO chance the Redskins and Cowboys do anything to help the NFLPA here. They're the League as far as this is concerned.

Even if they wanted to help, I believe the League bylaws prevent them from voluntarily participating in a suit against the League. They could testify if legally compelled, but not voluntarily.[/quote]

In either case compelled or not I doubt the NFL wants them on the stand saying anything remotely about collusion or agreements made without the NFLPA's agreement to it. Which takes me back to I could see the NFL finding a way to settle our CAP issue to make us happy to conveniently forget or should I say "not recall" any agreements.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918602]I understand what they're claiming. I just don't find it believable.[/quote]

It's not a matter of claiming, who cares if they knew ahead of March 12th, fact is they had no actionable facts to lay before a judge and say, here is the proof of collusion until Goodell, and later, Mara, made statements validating there beliefs.

Look if I believe that two local gas companies are fixing the price at the pump, I may see the trend early on, but I can't go to the courts, just because every monday station 1 puts up a penny lower price, and every thursday station 2 puts up a penny lower price. But if station 1 owner comes out one day, and says I am having a sale on Thursday, and the media asks him why, he says "because station 2 owner didn't keep to his side of the bargain", then the consumers could take the data of Monday/Thursday price fixing, and tied with Station owner 1's foot in mouth statement and sue the bejeebus out of both of them. It's not the media report that is the proof, it is the statement that is the basis of the media report. Further, if the judge says that looks shady, then the consumers and their lawyers could dig and ask for emails/communications that might further prove the depth of the collusion.

Just because the initial complaint doesn't lay out time/date/medium doesn't mean that Kessler and the other NFLPA lawyers won't go back now and start looking for trends and actions that are clearer in hindsight.

Back to my example, lets say station 1 owner and station 2 owner met in October 2010 and had some emails arranging that meeting, but not specifically discussing the collusion, and then in Jan 2011 met and agreed to begin in February 2011. At the time, the consumers might be curious, but have no direct information, or detectable pattern of behavior that would allow for further discovery. But after Station 1 owner's statement, the lawyers go back, see the emails about the meeting in Oct., then find that they met again in January, and the detectable price fixing pattern began in February. Maybe it's enough in court to convict, maybe not, but the consumers would absolutely have enough to make a media circus and living hell for the two station owners until they did something to make the consumers "forgive" them.

If the NFLPA gets to that point, we very well may see a whole new labor agreement, that is more favorable to the players. Remember, Kessler is an absolute free market, no salary cap, no restrictions period attack dog.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. All they have to do is be able to put enough information together to be able to make the judge come to the same conclusion that there was collusion on the part of the owners and they've won.

If the judge see's the March 11th agreement as a lose/lose deal he might decide the trial should go on. and I think it might. If the players said "no we don't agree to the punishment." then the NFL was going to lower the CAP for all teams basically taking money away from the players. Had the NFLPA said "ok we agree." as they did then the players lost revenue cause CAP space was taken away from two teams that would have used it and spent and given to teams who generally don't spend. Either way the NFLPA was in a losing situation.

Frankly Goodell and Mara were idiots to comment on the issue. They should have simply said the two teams took competative advantage and left it at that. As others have said the NFL does not owe us and explaination at all. But they didn't they ran their mouths thinking they were safe.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918607]There is ZERO chance the Redskins and Cowboys do anything to help the NFLPA here. They're the League as far as this is concerned.

Even if they wanted to help, I believe [B]the League bylaws prevent them from voluntarily participating in a suit against the League[/B]. They could testify if legally compelled, but not voluntarily.[/quote]

Is this the same laws that stated there was an uncapped year?

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918645]Is this the same laws that stated there was an uncapped year?[/quote]

No the bylaws are the set of rules that owners abide as part of their ownership responsibilities. They are the governing "laws" of the ownership agreements. Different than the CBA which is a settlement that outlines the rules governing working conditions and rights for labor.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Here is an interesting arguement from someone on another message board:

[QUOTE]I'm not talking about the 2010 collusion.

It's against the antitrust laws to combine to restrict trade or commerce. The agreement that contains our cap penalties restricts trade or commerce.

The catch is that collective bargaining is generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny. However, for an agreement to be exempt, it must be "the result of bona fide arms' length bargaining."

Everything I have read suggests that the NFL had the upper hand in the negotiations. Furthermore, apparently, the NFL was misleading about the purpose of the penalties. The NFLPA admits that they were "forced" into the agreement, and, if they had know the true reason for the penalties, they wouldn't have made the agreement.

That's the antitrust issue I'm talking about: What was the nature of the bargaining? There is a very strong possibility that the agreement is not exempt. Without that exemption, the agreement is almost certainly illegal, and, if so, we get our cap space back.

Those are the arguments that the Redskins didn't seem to make, but the NFLPA is now making these arguments.[/QUOTE]

It would be interesting if the judge see's it this way also. I'd love to have our CAP space back as a huge FU to Goodell and Mara for opening this can of worms when they could have let sleeping dogs lie.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7970628]DeMaurice Smith, NFL - ESPN[/url]

I'm still dumbfounded by the idiocy of DeMaurice Smith here. You knew about the collusion back when the NFL came to you to sign off on the cap punishments for the Boys/Skins yet said nothing. Did nothing. Allowed it to happen all because you wanted to get re-elected as the NFLPA head honco, and you couldn't do that if the cap and benefits were lowered that year.


So you wait until a arbitrator decides to dismiss the Skins/Boys argument to finally get into the fray? I would be outraged if I were a NFL player and had this clown working in my behalf.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

NC, I agree he's a clown and the players were idiots to keep him in place. However I still say there is a difference between the NLFPA believing collusion was happening (prior to March 11th) and possibly even their having physical evidence on or after March 11th. I know... WTF am I saying? lol. Lets say you know the NFL is colluding but you don't have actual proof. None of the owners are coming out and saying "yea we had this agreement to keep costs down", and otherwise all you have is the fact there were no major deals struck (which by the way everyone thought would happen) and no teams restructuring contracts to pay off the majority of the contract in the uncapped year, then you can only guess there is something up.

Then you have a few teams either spending money or restructuring their players contracts and the NFL approves those deals then your collusion case is kinda weak.

Then out of the blue the NFL calls you and says "hey if you don't agree to this we will have to lower the CAP" (and leave you with no proof of collusion), or "if you agree to the punishment we will make sure the CAP stays the same" (they have the proof: blackmail/strong arm tactics, the signed agreement to allow the punishment for some rule violation, and the actual punishment for the rule violation).

I'll take the agreeing everytime in order to get and have more ammunition for a collusion case. Now why did it take so long? Paper work is a lot of hard work, looking into the CBA and notes to see if you can file will take time, and possibly being a co-defendant in an appeals case might make you not file your charges until after the appeal is completed and making sure there is no way you can be used to convict your self in the appeals case.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

I want to point out, that the league didn't call the NFLPA out of the blue, The NFLPA asked for restructuring of the salary cap to keep it from going down (They admit this in their complaint), but the NFL said if you want that then we want to punish these 4 teams (2 drastically). It's not much of a difference, but the NFLPA was the group trying to keep the salary cap up, again, so that DSmith didn't lose his job (IMO). The NFL, and Mara, saw an opportunity to smack the Skins and Cowboys, and (again IMO), didn't think it through, because the NFLPA were already coming hat in hand asking for Salary cap adjustments. It's like a shady car dealer changing the interest once the deal is all but done.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918702]I want to point out, that the league didn't call the NFLPA out of the blue, The NFLPA asked for restructuring of the salary cap to keep it from going down (They admit this in their complaint), but the NFL said if you want that then we want to punish these 4 teams (2 drastically). It's not much of a difference, but the NFLPA was the group trying to keep the salary cap up, again, so that DSmith didn't lose his job (IMO). The NFL, and Mara, saw an opportunity to smack the Skins and Cowboys, and (again IMO), didn't think it through, because the NFLPA were already coming hat in hand asking for Salary cap adjustments. It's like a shady car dealer changing the interest once the deal is all but done.[/quote]

Your right. but honestly it really doesn't matter how we got to this point. I think it's just funny how Goodell and Mara and possibly what other teams brought the complaint to them to begin with, have done this to themselves. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot. Nothing like thinking your all in control and smug and have to realize later you probably were better off not doing anything about it to begin with.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918710]Your right. but honestly it really doesn't matter how we got to this point. I think it's just funny how Goodell and Mara and possibly what other teams brought the complaint to them to begin with, have done this to themselves. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot. Nothing like thinking your all in control and smug and have to realize later you probably were better off not doing anything about it to begin with.[/quote]

100% agree, it just bothers me that the NFLPA is making it sound like they were forced to accept the salary cap reallocation, they could have not agreed, or asked for more proof of the necessity, and then seen what happened but DSmith wasn't willing to take the chance that he get voted out because of it.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=NC_Skins;918683][URL="http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7970628"]DeMaurice Smith, NFL - ESPN[/URL]

I'm still dumbfounded by the idiocy of DeMaurice Smith here. You knew about the collusion back when the NFL came to you to sign off on the cap punishments for the Boys/Skins yet said nothing. Did nothing. Allowed it to happen all because you wanted to get re-elected as the NFLPA head honco, and you couldn't do that if the cap and benefits were lowered that year.


So you wait until a arbitrator decides to dismiss the Skins/Boys argument to finally get into the fray? I would be outraged if I were a NFL player and had this clown working in my behalf.[/quote]

I agree with you here.
SBXVII...put up a quote from someone"The catch is that collective bargaining is generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny. However, for an agreement to be exempt, it must be "the result of bona fide arms' length bargaining."
...problem here is DeMaurice Smith does'nt know how to collectively bargain and I think the owners will prove that ....there is something wrong with this suit,the NFLPA is relying on second hand ifo from a bloger,Smith admitted as much.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

I think some here want to point the finger at DSmith/NFLPA and say shame on you you knew what was going on and you agreed to the punishment anyway.

And I think you need to realize that he had nothing to point to as proof that there was collusion. If he refuses to agree to it there is no punishment for the two teams and the players are still out money. If he agreed to the punishment he now has proof two teams got into trouble for not keeping to some agreement the NFLPA was not aware of and did not agree to back in 2010.

I'm not saying he's smarter then everyone thinks but he's smart enough to know he had nothing proof wise unless he agreed to the punishments. And it was the next day almost that the two teams filed their appeal with both the NFL and NFLPA as co-defendants. At that point they were probably told by their attorney to not talk and don't file their collusion suit until after they were dropped as defendants or the appeal was dropped. Then the day after the appeal was dismissed the NFLPA files their suit.

If the case isgoing to be allowed to be proceed it will put the NFL between a rock and a hard place. If they do nothing and the Redskins get called up to testify perhaps DS is pissed enough to air some dirty laundry. If the NFL decides to give back some of the CAP space to help DS memory become a little foggy then it looks like the NFL is trying to cover something up. I'd imagine there probably would be some behind the door agreement to the Skins and Boys to conveniently not recall any such rules or collusion. We fans will probably never know what deals were made to ......forget.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Hell Congress has. E'en jumpy in the past so I really don't know why they haven't jumped on this issue and decided to hold an investigation?

I loved the fact they were all over baseball in reveres to steroids but if it was such a concern why wouldn't they just pick up the latest Muscle Magazine and drag those guys in for testing and questioning? Or WWE Wrestlers? Nope. Lets go after some people just to prove their lying.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Sally Jenkins nails it, good read.


[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/roger-goodell-appears-a-few-moves-ahead-of-everyone-in-the-nfl/2012/05/25/gJQAqRhNqU_story.html]Roger Goodell appears a few moves ahead of everyone in the NFL - The Washington Post[/url]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

I found some other views from another message board rather enlightening:
[QUOTE]Quoting The Submitted One: The No one seems to be reading the rest of the "Nature of Proceedings". Point 2 and 3 clearly state that while the 32 teams all were part of this "Secret Agreement", 4 clubs (Skins, Boys, Raiders, Saints) did not abide by it.

The language then continues to clearly implicate the other 28 clubs and how, furthermore, the NFL punished the teams who didn't abide. I'm not sure how you can read that and say it's going against all 32 clubs. Because in the article I read Smith clearly said,all 4 teams were part of the suit and there is evidence to prove it. Now in another article he did say that any team that believes they weren't part of the collusion would get a chance to prove themselves
[/QUOTE]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

To a fan who politely pointed out that the NFLPA signed off on all their rights "known and unknown" in the new CBA another fan makes this arguement and it's pretty reasonable:
[QUOTE]The NFLPA agreed not to sue based on any claims from the Brady or White lawsuits. The 2010 collusion was not part of those suits, so it's fair game. [/QUOTE]

to which anothre fan wrote this:
[QUOTE]Not according to the language on the settlement signed by both the NFL and Union and filed with the Court. The quote from that below specifically calls out any possible case relating to collusion in the 2010 season.

“The parties stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (‘SSA’) including but not limited to the claims asserting breach of the SSA related to (i) television contracts and broadcast revenues; and (ii) asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year, excepting only the pending claim filed March 11, 2011 relating to an alleged rookie shortfall on the part of the Philadelphia Eagles.”

The NFLPA seem to be trying to argue that the final ruling of the court which dismissed the Brady/White lawsuits did not take this stipulation into account and thus it's not valid. I'm not a lawyer but that seems a weak argument to me but we will see.[/QUOTE]

I can't but help thinking this little clause the NFL had put into the CBA screams of something very similar to when people or organizations make you sign a waver agreeing not to file a suit against them if you get hurt on their property or equipement. .... and I've heard those agreements are about as worthless as the paper their written on.

I can see the little clause with the section refering to known collusion and any cases already filed being dismissed. But I have a hard time (even though it's in a contract and signed) believing a judge would not allow the NFLPA to ever bring another collusion case against the NFL because they signed an agreement that stated any and all unknown collusion cases as well. Why? cause that would definitly give the NFL carte blanche to collude in the future with out penalty.

If this case gets dismissed I sure hope the Feds get involved and start asking the NFL questions and possibly looking into taking their exemption away forcing them to follow normal rules instead of making their own up as they go.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Sally Jenkins....quote"Of course the owners colluded. The NFL is built on collusion. Trouble is, in this case, the union signed a fat clause that excused owners for their piratical practices, and the commissioner has it in his back pocket. It’s called a “Stipulation of Dismissal,” and in it the players clearly gave away all claims regarding collusion, “known and unknown, whether pending or not,” when they signed their lousy labor deal last summer."

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918822]To a fan who politely pointed out that the NFLPA signed off on all their rights "known and unknown" in the new CBA another fan makes this arguement and it's pretty reasonable:


to which anothre fan wrote this:


I can't but help thinking this little clause the NFL had put into the CBA screams of something very similar to when people or organizations make you sign a waver agreeing not to file a suit against them if you get hurt on their property or equipement. .... and I've heard those agreements are about as worthless as the paper their written on.

I can see the little clause with the section refering to known collusion and any cases already filed being dismissed. But I have a hard time (even though it's in a contract and signed) believing a judge would not allow the NFLPA to ever bring another collusion case against the NFL because they signed an agreement that stated any and all unknown collusion cases as well. Why? cause that would definitly give the NFL carte blanche to collude in the future with out penalty.

If this case gets dismissed I sure hope the Feds get involved and start asking the NFL questions and possibly looking into taking their exemption away forcing them to follow normal rules instead of making their own up as they go.[/quote]

When this gets dismissed it's not the NFL it's the NFLPA that should look into finding someone who knows about contract negotiations and collectve bargining....Smith clearly doesn't.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918299]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.[/quote]


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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Mayor;918827]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.

.[/quote]

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

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

This fan also makes some decent points:
[QUOTE]Nice find.

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

[url]http://dockets.justia.com/docket/min...cv00906/57169/[/url]

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?[/QUOTE]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Giantone;918828]...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.[/quote]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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Giantone;918828]...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.[/quote]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Ruhskins;918875]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.[/quote]

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:[LIST][*]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[/LIST]
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.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;918879]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:[LIST][*]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[/LIST]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Ruhskins;918875]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918881]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918881]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.[/quote]

DeMaurice Smith has been getting his tuckus handed to him with this and the Vilma situation. He's feeling pressure.

Second, if they actually have evidence that the League imposed a secret cap of $123m, then maybe they have a case - if they can get past the waiver and explain why they actively helped the League enforce the secret cap.

Third, in the claim, the NFLPA actually does quote bloggers as evidence.

Basically, in reading everything that's currently public, I believe the NFL can coherently explain in a court of law why their punishment of the four teams doesn't constitute illegal collusion. I also believe that the claims the NFLPA makes in their complaint are transparently thin.

Based on this, I see two possibilities:[LIST=1][*]The NFLPA has damning evidence they're waiting to reveal if they get past the hurdle of whether they can even sue or not.[*]The NFLPA is trumping up the thin evidence they have and suing for PR purposes.[/LIST]
Based on how DeMaurice Smith has handled things so far, and based on how he's handling the Bounty cases, my sneaking suspicion is #2.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;918887]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.[/quote]
I must admit, I'm enjoying the hell out of the embarrassment that's being heaped upon Mara in this.

I think Goodell probably comes out of this stronger, DeMaurice Smith probably comes out weaker, but whatever happens Mara gets to go sit in a corner for a while.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[url=http://thelandryhat.com/2012/05/26/john-maras-obsession-with-jerry-jones-mars-nfl/]John Mara's Obsession with Jerry Jones Mars NFL - The Landry Hat - A Dallas Cowboys Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and more.[/url]

[QUOTE]Just as the Cowboys’ actions weren’t illegal, they weren’t uncommon. According to cap pandit AdamJT13 at the CowboysZone, The Green Bay Packers renegotiated the contracts of Tramon Williams, Nick Collins, Ryan Picket, and BJ Raji. The league kvetched at us giving Austin $17 million in 2010 and then $8.5 million in 2011. But the Packers gave Nick Collins a cap number of $10.9 million in 2010. In 2011, his cap number was a little over $5 million. Why didn’t the NFL management council go after the Crackers up there? After all, aren’t we talking about “unacceptable risk to future competitive balance”? Who won a Super Bowl later that year? Who went 15-1 with homefield advantage the next year? Oh, the poor Crackers up there who need to be protected from the NFL becoming like Major League Baseball. Boo hoo.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]Bears – Julius Peppers (2010 cap hit: 35mil, 2011 cap hit: 13mil)
Texans – Matt Schaub (2010 cap hit: 15mil, 2011 cap hit: 6mil)
Chiefs – Tyson Jackson (2010 cap hit: 17mil, 2011 cap hit: 2mil)
Eagles – Jason Peters (2010 cap hit: 14mil, 2011 cap hit: 6mil)
[/QUOTE]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

#1- Its easy in hind sight to say the NFLPA knew or should have known, but there always is the possibility they didn't, just like some believe the possibility the NFL didn't collude.

#2- whether they agreed or not seems to be whether they had enough (even if it's circumstantial or not) evidence to file a law suit.

So the NFLPA is faced wih turning down the deal with the NFL... What do they have to bring a law suit? The NFL maybe didn't even tell them which teams were going to be punished just that two teams needed punished. So who do they contact about collusion if they don't even know who was being punished? Again they had no evidence.

The NFLPA agrees to the punishments, learns who failed to follow the agreement, has proof of it because Mara and Goodell opened their idiot mouths, and the fact two teams were punished for not following an agreement. There's your proof.

Otherwise they had nothing but behind the scenes communication not recorded that no one nor judge would believe.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918943]#1- Its easy in hind sight to say the NFLPA knew or should have known, but there always is the possibility they didn't, just like some believe the possibility the NFL didn't collude.

#2- whether they agreed or not seems to be whether they had enough (even if it's circumstantial or not) evidence to file a law suit.

So the NFLPA is faced wih turning down the deal with the NFL... What do they have to bring a law suit? The NFL maybe didn't even tell them which teams were going to be punished just that two teams needed punished. So who do they contact about collusion if they don't even know who was being punished? Again they had no evidence.

The NFLPA agrees to the punishments, learns who failed to follow the agreement, has proof of it because Mara and Goodell opened their idiot mouths, and the fact two teams were punished for not following an agreement. There's your proof.

Otherwise they had nothing but behind the scenes communication not recorded that no one nor judge would believe.[/quote]

So, basically you think DeMaurice Smith is playing chess while Goodell is playing checkers?

Is that what you're talking yourself into?

Next question, how exactly do you think the salary cap reallocation letter would read without naming which teams' caps were modified?

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Hoop,

It's clear you don't like the blog citations, but in this instance I don't see how they are different than referencing any other media source, from which numerous lawsuits have been filed. The one reference that is perhaps shady is the one which references an unnamed source close to situation, but the NFLPA also says, in so many words that additional discovery and interviews would shed more light, and they cite specific quotes from Mara, that lends credence to the unnamed sources.

Collusion is probably one of the hardest things to prove, since by it's very nature everyone involved has taken the vow of silence from the very beginning of the act, and it is in their interest to maintain that silence. You even said that the Skins and Boys are unlikely to aid the NFLPA in there search, and those two teams have the most reason to be angry and help. But the compelling interest of all 32 teams is to give nothing away especially in court. For that reason, I think the judge may be more willing to allow some level of probing and questioning, the waiver not withstanding, and with minimal hard evidence up front. The rationale being, if there's nothing there than it won't hurt, and if there is, then the breadcrumbs were legitimate.

- separately -

The worst thing about this, is that with no expediting factors, it's going to drag on for years... (eg the starcaps case)

a lawyer I know pointed out that, unlike the lockout cases, if the waiver gets waived then there is no expedited appeal for that and the digging could commence. I thought that was interesting.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918947]So, basically you think DeMaurice Smith is playing chess while Goodell is playing checkers?

Is that what you're talking yourself into?

Next question, how exactly do you think the salary cap reallocation letter would read without naming which teams' caps were modified?[/quote]

Wow, you got this all figured out. How about the NFL never told the NFLPA who was being punished until after they were politely reminded they couldn't file the law suit and when they agreed to allow the punishement then the paperwork slides across the table with the team names. The $$ amount of the reallocation was probably discussed even before the punishment was. Get the NFLPA to be thinking along the lines of finding a way to keep the $$ were they were instead of picking up a huge loss. Then when the NFL comes out with "Oh, we'd like to punish a couple of teams for competative balance and we can use that money to keep the CAP were it's at..... would you agree to that?"

No one knows how it went down in the meeting. No one knows what all was mentioned other then Goodell and DSmith. What upsets me is everyone assuming they know how it went down and that the NFLPA had to of known. Maybe they only knew part of the information and gained more after the agreement was signed and Mara opened his mouth. Maybe they knew but had no proof until after they agreed. I'm sure DSmith was "hell do whatever you want with your own as long as you keep our CAP numbers the same." Then afterwards he see's it was because the two teams we punished for "competetive balance" in an "uncapped year" when "competative balance" didn't mean squat because there was no CAP.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918960]Hoop,

It's clear you don't like the blog citations, but in this instance I don't see how they are different than referencing any other media source, from which numerous lawsuits have been filed. The one reference that is perhaps shady is the one which references an unnamed source close to situation, but the NFLPA also says, in so many words that additional discovery and interviews would shed more light, and they cite specific quotes from Mara, that lends credence to the unnamed sources.

Collusion is probably one of the hardest things to prove, since by it's very nature everyone involved has taken the vow of silence from the very beginning of the act, and it is in their interest to maintain that silence. You even said that the Skins and Boys are unlikely to aid the NFLPA in there search, and those two teams have the most reason to be angry and help. But the compelling interest of all 32 teams is to give nothing away especially in court. For that reason, I think the judge may be more willing to allow some level of probing and questioning, the waiver not withstanding, and with minimal hard evidence up front. The rationale being, if there's nothing there than it won't hurt, and if there is, then the breadcrumbs were legitimate.

- separately -

The worst thing about this, is that with no expediting factors, it's going to drag on for years... (eg the starcaps case)

a lawyer I know pointed out that, unlike the lockout cases, if the waiver gets waived then there is no expedited appeal for that and the digging could commence. I thought that was interesting.[/quote]

Not to mention the NFLPA has used the Reskins/Cowboys as partial evidence and even though many here have good reasons to believe the two teams will not help the NFLPA they also noted that any team that could prove they didn't collude would be given amnesty. To me that means those teams would be looked at as not having to pay a penalty if a judgement for the NFLPA was awarded.

One would think if the NFL all decided they were mad and wanted to punish two teams and all voted on it and agreed, now they would be shitting a brick because the two austrisized teams "might" , just might say something in front of a judge that might warrant some more probing or prove that there was an agreement.... especially if they know they won't have to pay a fine. Giving back some CAP space might be a decent concession to keeping peoples mouths shut. You know..... "not recall" any agreements.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Come on DS and JJ..... Send in your complaints..... another team that can be shafted that voted against us....

[url=http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/lions_could_face_penalties_over_arrests/10894622]Lions could face penalties over arrests | Yardbarker.com[/url]

[QUOTE]The drug- and alcohol-related arrests of two Detroit Lions players this offseason may lead to financial penalties for the franchise itself. Under NFL rules, any club that has at least two players suspended for violations in the same season under three different policies (performance-enhancing drugs, substances of abuse and personal conduct) must remit a portion of their salary to the league.[/QUOTE]

Come on Goodell you've jumped on everything else.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918960]Hoop,

It's clear you don't like the blog citations, but in this instance I don't see how they are different than referencing any other media source, from which numerous lawsuits have been filed. The one reference that is perhaps shady is the one which references an unnamed source close to situation, but the NFLPA also says, in so many words that additional discovery and interviews would shed more light, and they cite specific quotes from Mara, that lends credence to the unnamed sources.

Collusion is probably one of the hardest things to prove, since by it's very nature everyone involved has taken the vow of silence from the very beginning of the act, and it is in their interest to maintain that silence. You even said that the Skins and Boys are unlikely to aid the NFLPA in there search, and those two teams have the most reason to be angry and help. But the compelling interest of all 32 teams is to give nothing away especially in court. For that reason, I think the judge may be more willing to allow some level of probing and questioning, the waiver not withstanding, and with minimal hard evidence up front. The rationale being, if there's nothing there than it won't hurt, and if there is, then the breadcrumbs were legitimate.

- separately -

The worst thing about this, is that with no expediting factors, it's going to drag on for years... (eg the starcaps case)

a lawyer I know pointed out that, unlike the lockout cases, if the waiver gets waived then there is no expedited appeal for that and the digging could commence. I thought that was interesting.[/quote]

Like I said, I see two possibilities: either the NFLPA has something damning or they are doing this for PR purposes. My very-non-expert opinion is that based on what's publicly known, it's the latter.

If I have to guess who's going to win a battle of wits between Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, I'm going to guess Goodell every time.