Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
I'll try not to incite any riots.
I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?
Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.
Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.
They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?
Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.
Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.
|
In your complaint, you only need to allege facts - which if true - prove your case. In a considering a Motion to Dismiss, the judge must assume the facts alleged as true. If the facts as alleged are legally sufficient to constitute a breach of the 1993 Settlement Agreement -
then the NFL's motion to dismiss will be denied and the NFLPA can proceed to the discovery phase and obtain the NFL's documents, depose all the owners, etc., etc. And of course, there is always Mara's statement which seems to me
primae facie proof of collusion.
While I agree the NFLPA's assertion that they had no idea the reallocation was intended to punish teams for not colluding sounds a bit like Captain Renault's declaration that he was "shocked to find gambling is going on here!!". For the purposes of preventing the NFLPA from getting discovery, however, it is assumed to be true.
To me, unless the NFL wins its waiver argument, the NFLPA is going have a lot of fun airing out the owners dirty laundry. At the same time, the waiver argument is not just pissing in the wind.