ESPN: NFLPA files collusion suit vs. NFL

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Reality, May 23, 2012.

  1. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    16,284 Messages
    7,507 Likes Received
    I think the NFLPA signed the CBA conceding a bit more than they wanted to the NFL. I think where the players liked the CBA was for less practice time, hitting in practice and the rookie cap. But, I think there were other things the players really didn't like about the CBA like the franchise tag. I think De Smith got some unexpected backlash from the player's union on some of the things the players didn't like and I don't think he likes Goodell and the NFL one bit, so he has the perfect chance to take a big dig at them again.

    A lot of people here and in other places really went out of their way to chastise De Smith during the negotiations, but I just felt that he wasn't the bad guy all along. The NFL and the owners were and they were using the media to their advantage. I mean, who is the media going to support, the players who often times want nothing to do with them or the owners and league office who put them in nice booths and provide fancy catering for them along with mandating that every player has to do an interview every so often?

  2. nathanlt

    nathanlt Well-Known Member

    2,666 Messages
    799 Likes Received
    I think it's along the lines of every movie plot you've ever seen. The villan makes some smarmy comment to the hero early in the movie when it seems like the villan is unstoppable.

    Then later, when the hero has turned the tables, he repeats the original line back to the villan who takes it on the chin for being so cruel.

    The NFL signed off on all of the Cowboys and Redskins player contracts, then came back to accuse them of breaking an unwritten rule. Now the NFLPA has agreed to the arbitrator's decision, then come back to prove collusion.

    Irony wins, and I hope it wins in this case as well.
  3. Reality

    Reality Administrator Staff Member

    14,541 Messages
    9,788 Likes Received
    I agree completely! Very smart tactic on the NFLPA's part!

  4. Reality

    Reality Administrator Staff Member

    14,541 Messages
    9,788 Likes Received
    I don't necessarily agree with this. They had little choice but to agree to the cap penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys. It is the NFL led by Mara who pushed this on the NFLPA and now the Mara-led NFL is going to have to defend their actions in a much larger legal process.

  5. btcutter

    btcutter Well-Known Member

    4,005 Messages
    1,207 Likes Received
    Instead of letting Cowboys and Skins spend their money on player $50-60 million. Now NFL is going to be spending 10-20 million just fighting this in court. If they lose....$1 Billions!

    Mara and NFL are just plain STUPID. They basically gave the NFLPA the evidence they need by penalizing the few teams in UNCAPPED year.
  6. DallasCowboysRule!

    DallasCowboysRule! Well-Known Member

    1,791 Messages
    475 Likes Received
    I don't think that would harm the Cowboys and Redskins. Out of the NFL those two teams are among the ones that would benefit most from just such a situation. It would harm small market teams though like Jacksonville.

    I don't like to throw around the word stupid but it was among the most idiotic things I've ever seen in my life. They indicted themselves and the evidence against them will be their own words.
  7. btcutter

    btcutter Well-Known Member

    4,005 Messages
    1,207 Likes Received

    Based on this reasoning, the Boys and Skins should be excluded from the lawsuit since they did not abide by the "secret cap".
  8. Sam I Am

    Sam I Am Unfriendly and Aloof!

    37,707 Messages
    5,784 Likes Received
    The problem is they committed collusion with the NFL when they agreed to the fines against the Redskins and Cowboys. The NFL said they would raise the cap if they would agree to the fines which would make it legal before the CBA. (both NFL and NFLPA agreeing)

    So, that is collusion. Therefore the NFLPA stabbed the Cowboys and the Redskins in the back. Now, they are biting the hand that fed them by now suing the NFL using the exact same evidence that they agreed to overlook for millions of dollars.

    Basically, the Cowboys and Redskins now get a double whammy. They got screwed out of millions in cap space and the NFLPA got paid and now the NFLPA is asking for more money and the Cowboys and Redskins will have to cough up more money.
  9. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    16,225 Messages
    3,614 Likes Received
    It's almost guaranteed that the NFLPA's lawsuit will be dismissed right away.

    The NFLPA signed off on Article 3, Section 3, subsection (a) of the current CBA, which prohibits them from suing the NFL for collusion in any year prior to 2011 --

    Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:
    The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the 8 Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (“TR”) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.​
  10. Muhast

    Muhast Newo

    7,661 Messages
    367 Likes Received

    :( Adam, you just crushed our party! Good find though.
  11. erod

    erod Well-Known Member

    16,242 Messages
    17,784 Likes Received
    Means nothing. It doesn't take the NFLPA to challenge this.

    Keith Brooking and Amani Toomer could challlenge this. They were players then, but they aren't in the NFLPA now.
  12. cowboy_ron

    cowboy_ron You Can't Fix Stupid

    4,784 Messages
    1,372 Likes Received
    But, Adam, how is the NFLPA signing off on this getting dismissed any different than the NFL signing off on the Boys/Skins transactions that the NFL signed of on but yet is allowed to being upheld? Just curious
  13. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    16,225 Messages
    3,614 Likes Received
    Sorry, but you are wrong.
  14. ThreeandOut

    ThreeandOut Well-Known Member

    2,650 Messages
    1,404 Likes Received
    I was thinking the same thing. But it might have to be a player that played during the uncapped year but retired prior to the ratification of the new CBA.
  15. cowboy_ron

    cowboy_ron You Can't Fix Stupid

    4,784 Messages
    1,372 Likes Received
    Erod, just a heads up man, this forum isn't like True Blue is...several of these guys actually have NFL jobs as scouts etc...come in here more often and you'll see what I'm talking about...there is a lot of knowledge to be gained here rather than just mere's a great place to get to know
  16. kmd24

    kmd24 Active Member

    3,436 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    This is not a good thing, IMO. The NFLPA is asking to reopen and enforce the prior SSA based on the NFL's bad faith negotiating. (The National Labor Relations Act requires that both sides in a collective bargaining situation operate in good faith and strictly defines tactics that each side may use; just guessing that collusion isn't an approved tactic.)

    I don't know if that means they are trying to invalidate the current CBA, but based on Article III that Adam quoted, it would almost seem necessary for the NFLPA to find any remedy.

    Hopefully this suit gets thrown out.
  17. Barrister

    Barrister Member

    58 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Doesn't seem that cut-n-dry. Others may have already brought this up, but there is nothing in the agreement that I see that defines claims to include all claims both known and unknown. I don't know what the governing law (in this case, New York) says about whether a general release by default applies to unknown claims or not.
  18. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    26,165 Messages
    6,055 Likes Received
    You are looking at this as a fan and not as a businessman like Jerry would. Any lessened restrictions could possibly help the Cowboys and Redskins competively but financially it would be a kick in the nads.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Benched

    43,820 Messages
    3,379 Likes Received
    somehow I do not think this is the end of it.

    I am surprised that you can actually say that you can collude and not pay for it according to that agreement.

    Learn something new every day.

    Also I doubt that the NFLPA would actually file a suit and know it would be dismissed UNLESS they have something else in mind.
  20. kmd24

    kmd24 Active Member

    3,436 Messages
    0 Likes Received

Share This Page