Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
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.
|
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:
- 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.
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.