44 replies to this topic

[NoSaint]

Pretty good jumping off point FAQ by defense lawyer/Law blogger that covers basics of what's going on legally here. With 3 lawsuits against the nfl/roger there's some interesting stuff for an nfl fan with 9 years left under this CBA.

http://www.stradleyl...ate-common-qas/

Has all the filings linked, and additionally a common sense breakdown of some of the core issues at hand.

Edit:
Part 2 added: http://www.stradleyl...-bountygate-qa/

Some more talk about why it's an important process not just for those 4 players but fans of all 32 teams the next 9 years. Essentially with free reign for 9 more years, what's left to keep RG in check for future punishments if he wins this battle?

Edited by NoSaint, 07 July 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[K-9]

NoSaint, on 06 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Pretty good jumping off point FAQ by defense lawyer/Law blogger that covers basics of what's going on legally here. With 3 lawsuits against the nfl/roger there's some interesting stuff for an nfl fan with 9 years left under this CBA.

http://www.stradleyl...ate-common-qas/

Has all the filings linked, and additionally a common sense breakdown of some of the core issues at hand.

I sincerely wish them well in their efforts to sue the league. I just have a feeling the courts don't like meddling in collectively bargained issues. We'll see.

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

K-9, on 06 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I sincerely wish them well in their efforts to sue the league. I just have a feeling the courts don't like meddling in collectively bargained issues. We'll see.

GO BILLS!!!

I think it's a real longshot but the judge vilma got is known for pushing the boundaries and not liking big corporations. It could be the door cracking open but it's hard to speculate.

[K-9]

NoSaint, on 06 July 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

I think it's a real longshot but the judge vilma got is known for pushing the boundaries and not liking big corporations. It could be the door cracking open but it's hard to speculate.

I find it curious that the NFLPA is going to bat for all the other suspended players and not getting involved in the Vilma litigation. What are the local scribes saying about that?

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

K-9, on 06 July 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I find it curious that the NFLPA is going to bat for all the other suspended players and not getting involved in the Vilma litigation. What are the local scribes saying about that?

GO BILLS!!!

He already has his own suit, amd lawyer and wants to go it alone, from what I gather. I haven't seen any good analysis in the pros/cons of it. I don't think it's the nflpa not going to bat for him but instead him being willing to go out of pocket to be more aggressive.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

NoSaint, on 06 July 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I don't think it's the nflpa not going to bat for him but instead him being willing to go out of pocket to be more aggressive.

The infamous Losman Gambit?

[NoSaint]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 06 July 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

The infamous Losman Gambit?

Likewise, the goal line seems just out of reach, as if it moves every time he approaches it.

Who knows, maybe he will surprise the defense with an 80 yarder or two before they realize what hit them.

[bowery4]

IMO the heart and core of the problem here is this:

Quote

Ultimately, the players are put in a very bad situation. They are the subject of general accusations against them coming from a secret source. It is difficult to prove a negative, particularly when you can't examine the evidence against you and may have limitations in accessing and questioning witnesses.

Having to go legal and public to get discovery out there, seems to be expensive and employer biased. With that I feel for the players in the case, I tend to think there are real issues against the NFL even if the alleged did happen. Litigation in the US is always tilted to the richer and often times more "evil" of the parties. It would be wise of the government (which is all run by lawyers, I realize so it ain't going to happen) if litigation were arbitrated before and settlement was reached along with tested for fairness before actual lawsuits (appeals in this case) could be filed. It would save the taxpayers and courts tons of money and make too much sense, of course.

Edited by bowery4, 06 July 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[Overseas Bills Fan]

K-9, on 06 July 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I find it curious that the NFLPA is going to bat for all the other suspended players and not getting involved in the Vilma litigation. What are the local scribes saying about that?

GO BILLS!!!

The litigation was started by a union member, not the union itself, therefore the union has no obligation to do that.  A police officer dismissed or suspended can use the union to appeal, but the responsibility to file the lawsuit if there is grounds (or no grounds) is solely on the injured party.  The union has no legal standing.

[zazie]

Any player who was injured playing against the Saints in the last few years, has a legit lawsuit, IMO, and you will see some litigation coming from that side as well, shortly,.  The attorneys are just looking for good plaintiff candidates I am sure, as we speak

[NoSaint]

Part 2 of the q&a

http://www.stradleyl...-bountygate-qa/

[jeremy2020]

The NFLPA should have addressed this during the negotiations. Supporting the litigation culture whenever you don't get everything you want it pretty ridiculous.

[NoSaint]

jeremy2020, on 08 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

The NFLPA should have addressed this during the negotiations. Supporting the litigation culture whenever you don't get everything you want it pretty ridiculous.

They are in part arguing that they did and the nfl is not following that process properly, from what I gather.

Edited by NoSaint, 08 July 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[jeremy2020]

NoSaint, on 08 July 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

They are in part arguing that they did and the nfl is not following that process properly, from what I gather.

They're trying to change what they agreed to...in short, Desmith got owned because he was focused on money. They're saying that the NFL did not follow the basic due process (they did). The process followed all goes to Gooodell. So players can appeal...to Goodell.

The NFLPA is trying to have its cake and eat it too. That should have been hammered out in the CBA, but it would have meant they had to give up something. The aim in the Vilma lawsuit is to get to discovery so they can get all the documents (names) involved. It's disgusting.

Why isn't the NFLPA going after players that purposely tried to injure and affect the careers of other players? If the NFLPA had been ahead of the NFL on this, it's likely they would have been included. The NFLPA should have more concern for player safety than the NFL does..they represent players.


Again, unless you're an utter moron, you don't agree to a ten year agreement without having settled this question which is what the NFLPA did and they should have to live with it. That they can throw a temper tantrum when the hand is caught in the cookie jar is somewhat absurd. No one cay say that they were not fairly represented in the negotiations.

[NoSaint]

jeremy2020, on 08 July 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

They're trying to change what they agreed to...in short, Desmith got owned because he was focused on money. They're saying that the NFL did not follow the basic due process (they did). The process followed all goes to Gooodell. So players can appeal...to Goodell.

The NFLPA is trying to have its cake and eat it too. That should have been hammered out in the CBA, but it would have meant they had to give up something. The aim in the Vilma lawsuit is to get to discovery so they can get all the documents (names) involved. It's disgusting.

Why isn't the NFLPA going after players that purposely tried to injure and affect the careers of other players? If the NFLPA had been ahead of the NFL on this, it's likely they would have been included. The NFLPA should have more concern for player safety than the NFL does..they represent players.


Again, unless you're an utter moron, you don't agree to a ten year agreement without having settled this question which is what the NFLPA did and they should have to live with it. That they can throw a temper tantrum when the hand is caught in the cookie jar is somewhat absurd. No one cay say that they were not fairly represented in the negotiations.

Right but the argument is that goodell didn't act as a fair and impartial arbitrator, not that goodell couldn't be one. Among other CBA issues arising (3 day rule, for instance). Obviously the whole thing could have been avoided last year but just because goodell is the sole ruler doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants.

[SoFFacet]

jeremy2020, on 08 July 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

They're trying to change what they agreed to...in short, Desmith got owned because he was focused on money. They're saying that the NFL did not follow the basic due process (they did). The process followed all goes to Gooodell. So players can appeal...to Goodell.

The NFLPA is trying to have its cake and eat it too. That should have been hammered out in the CBA, but it would have meant they had to give up something. The aim in the Vilma lawsuit is to get to discovery so they can get all the documents (names) involved. It's disgusting.

It just doesn't make any sense that the players should have had to give up *anything* to get an impartial process into the CBA. Its disgusting that such a basic thing was used as a bargaining chip by the NFL in the first place.  

Quote

Why isn't the NFLPA going after players that purposely tried to injure and affect the careers of other players? If the NFLPA had been ahead of the NFL on this, it's likely they would have been included. The NFLPA should have more concern for player safety than the NFL does..they represent players.

This I agree with, but I think the lawsuits are ultimately more about forcing Goodell to actually reveal his evidence rather than trying to defeat the suspensions. I don't doubt the evidence exists, but it is concerning that Goodell feels no compulsion to actually produce it. It would set a bad precedent if he can just suspend players and when asked simply waive his hand and say "don't worry there's evidence I promise."

[jeremy2020]

SoFFacet, on 08 July 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

It just doesn't make any sense that the players should have had to give up *anything* to get an impartial process into the CBA. Its disgusting that such a basic thing was used as a bargaining chip by the NFL in the first place.  

It wasn't used as a bargaining chip. The players didn't address it. I think they would have had to give up something (in terms of drug testing, a higher 'moral' standard of some sort or that they would have had to agree to strict guidelines on player conduct (why I think they let it go). The players don't just want a voice, they want to have the pull to decide. The important point is that Goodell didn't magically make them leave it the way it was..

There's also the question of 'impartial'. I think the players very easily could have included a voice in the process to gain 'impartiality', but they focused on money. They were laser focused on the dollar figure. This isn't the only point that seems to have been overlooked by the NFLPA in the CBA. I think we're headed for years of litigation over various issues because Desmith got snowed.

Quote

This I agree with, but I think the lawsuits are ultimately more about forcing Goodell to actually reveal his evidence rather than trying to defeat the suspensions. I don't doubt the evidence exists, but it is concerning that Goodell feels no compulsion to actually produce it. It would set a bad precedent if he can just suspend players and when asked simply waive his hand and say "don't worry there's evidence I promise."

Goodell offered to share the evidence with the NFLPA (I believe there was certain confidentiality terms. I'm not sure, all I know is what outside what is required by the CBA). They declined.

Edited by jeremy2020, 08 July 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[NoSaint]

jeremy2020, on 08 July 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

It wasn't used as a bargaining chip. The players didn't address it. I think they would have had to give up something (in terms of drug testing, a higher 'moral' standard of some sort or that they would have had to agree to strict guidelines on player conduct (why I think they let it go). The players don't just want a voice, they want to have the pull to decide. The important point is that Goodell didn't magically make them leave it the way it was..

There's also the question of 'impartial'. I think the players very easily could have included a voice in the process to gain 'impartiality', but they focused on money. They were laser focused on the dollar figure. This isn't the only point that seems to have been overlooked by the NFLPA in the CBA. I think we're headed for years of litigation over various issues because Desmith got snowed.




Goodell offered to share the evidence with the NFLPA (I believe there was certain confidentiality terms. I'm not sure, all I know is what outside what is required by the CBA). They declined.

I don't recall ever hearing a meaningful offer made with regards to evidence. I'd be curious to hear more if you have any idea on a source

[jeremy2020]

NoSaint, on 08 July 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

I don't recall ever hearing a meaningful offer made with regards to evidence. I'd be curious to hear more if you have any idea on a source

http://www.scribd.co...ints-Bountygate

[K-9]

jeremy2020, on 08 July 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

http://www.scribd.co...ints-Bountygate

Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting reading. If I'm Vilma and the others, I'm concerned that my lawyers don't know the difference between three calendar days and 72 hours and, secondly, that they have so little regard for what their representatives, including the estimable Drew Brees, collectively bargained for.

The court of public opinion is nice and all but it's fickle. Hargrove, he who can "lie with the best of them" should have understood that when he made his public dissertation in front of league headquarters in June.

These guys don't have a chance.

GO BILLS!!!