NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[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.

[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

[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."

[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]

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.

[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?

[Ruhskins]

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.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

[HoopheadVII]

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.

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.