NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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:

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.
2. 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.

[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.

[Dirtbag59]

John Mara's Obsession with Jerry Jones Mars NFL - The Landry Hat - A Dallas Cowboys Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and more.

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.

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)

[SBXVII]

#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.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

#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.

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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?

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[SBXVII]

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

Lions could face penalties over arrests | Yardbarker.com

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.

Come on Goodell you've jumped on everything else.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.