NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

DeMaurice Smith, NFL - ESPN

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.

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.

[SBXVII]

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.

[SBXVII]

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.

[Giantone]

Sally Jenkins nails it, good read.


Roger Goodell appears a few moves ahead of everyone in the NFL - The Washington Post

[SBXVII]

I found some other views from another message board rather enlightening:

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

[SBXVII]

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:

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.

to which anothre fan wrote this:

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.

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.

[Giantone]

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."

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

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.

[Mayor]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mayor

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.

[SBXVII]

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?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...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.

[Mayor]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...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.