ESPN: NFLPA files collusion suit vs. NFL

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

  1. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,423 Messages
    296 Likes Received
    But that's only in reference to the White or Brady cases...the union is claiming that this is something different than what was agreed to with those cases.

    There's also this:

    Chris Russell
    The @NFLPA says the document @nfl is referring to was rejected, the language the NFL is giving you, is something court did not accept.
  2. kmd24

    kmd24 Active Member

    3,436 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    If you read the CBA closely as well as the NFLPA's petition, the NFLPA angle becomes more clear.

    Article III, Section 3, item (a) reads:
    The NFLPA is petitioning on the basis that 1) this collusion claim was not asserted in the prior cases and 2) this collusion claim could not have been asserted because discovery occurred in March, 2012.

    IANAL, so I have no idea if there is any merit to this argument, but I don't think it's readily apparent that the NFLPA cannot sue.

    Here is a link to a pdf of the filing from
    Section 36 immediately under the heading "THE CLAIMS PRESENTED HERE ARE ENTIRELY NEW" contains their argument with respect to their standing to sue in the face of Article III, Section 3, item (a) of the 2011 CBA.
  3. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    16,227 Messages
    3,624 Likes Received

    So it comes down to whether the language in the CBA prohibits suing for any collusion prior to 2011 or only suing for exactly the collusion that was alleged in the previous lawsuits.

    The key phrase in the CBA is "without limitation, any claim relating to." If that phrase is meaningless, then the NFLPA might have a case. IANALE, so who knows.
  4. Hostile

    Hostile The Duke

    119,480 Messages
    4,208 Likes Received
    Maybe it's just me wanting to see Mara slapped right int he mouth, but I see a very evident loophole there that tells me it might not be dismissed.
  5. NinePointOh

    NinePointOh Well-Known Member

    1,583 Messages
    78 Likes Received
    Obviously that phrase isn't "meaningless," but you seem to be interpreting it strangely.

    "Including, without limitation" is another way to say something like "including, but not limited to." So "without limitation" merely implies that the list provided is not exhaustive -- it doesn't mean that the provision is somehow limitless.

    "Any claim relating to" refers specifically to the part you cut off. So "any claim relating to the 2011 lockout" was the first item in the list, "any restrictions on free agency" was the second item, etc.

    Anyways, I'm not sure why Cowboys fans who sided with the NFL before are cheering on this lawsuit now. It doesn't mean we'll get our cap penalty reversed, and it has almost every downside the last lawsuit had, in terms of endangering the league.
  6. erod

    erod Well-Known Member

    17,156 Messages
    19,541 Likes Received
    Judge Doty hates the NFL. He's already sided with Reggie White once, and he'd love to do it again.

    He's very pro-union, too.

    This is a very slippery slope for the league. Winning back our $10 million cap space could cost us in massive changes to the league.
  7. Kangaroo

    Kangaroo Active Member

    9,893 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It is about Mara geeing kicked in the nuts
  8. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Wait a minute. The NFLPA sided with the NFL in the cowboys/Redskins case against the league, and now they are suing the league over the same thing?

    Did I miss something?
  9. NinePointOh

    NinePointOh Well-Known Member

    1,583 Messages
    78 Likes Received
    They didn't side with the NFL in the case against the league. They accepted the cap penalties for the Cowboys and Redskins because the NFL didn't tell them what they would really be for.
  10. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,896 Messages
    13,062 Likes Received
    I have been beating the NFL as unethical business organization drum for awhile. I just hope that you guys keep long memories. It's going to take some serious legal gymnastics to get around the non-litigation agreement but 9 years from now it's going to be even uglier than last year. Don't get sucked by the NFL PR machine again.
  11. kmd24

    kmd24 Active Member

    3,436 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It doesn't cover only what was alleged, it also covers what "could have" been alleged. I don't know what that means, really, but the NFLPA seems to be taking the tack that it means they had to have knowledge of the activity.

    Earlier today, the NFL cited some language that included the words "known and unknown" in regards to the collusion charges. I believe but am not certain that this is the language that the NFLPA is claiming the court rejected. Certainly, if the word "unknown" were included in the CBA, then it would seem on the surface that the argument in Section 36 of the NFLPA's petition would be baseless.
  12. sonnyboy

    sonnyboy Benched

    7,355 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That's me. And it's because that smug blanker blanker Mara pissed me off. Now I want the blanker blanker burnt down.

    This whole thing is was beyond arrogant. Uncapped is uncapped, PERIOD. And their was a darn good reason 2010 was uncapped. It was a penalty against the league for opting out of the previous agreement early.

    So the NFL wants its cake and wants to eat it to..........

    Then after braking the law they have the balls to come out and tell everyone they broke the law.

    And expect nothing to come of it????
  13. NinePointOh

    NinePointOh Well-Known Member

    1,583 Messages
    78 Likes Received
    It just seems a little strange to be taking the exact opposite position you took two years ago, just because the NFLPA is now the enemy of our enemy. Last time people swore the league's financial viability was in jeopardy -- so if this lawsuit succeeds and the NFL goes under (or whatever was supposed to have happened), will it be worth it just to get back at Mara?
  14. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,896 Messages
    13,062 Likes Received
    They got sucked by the NFL PR machine. We were in the midst of a recession and league revenue was increasing. It shouldn't have been that hard to figure out.

    Even if the owners go bankrupt all that will mean is new owners. It's a $9b juggernaut.
  15. muck4doo

    muck4doo Least-Known Member

    3,739 Messages
    1,924 Likes Received
    Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to the filing(warning 20 page pdf):

    Supposedly they didn't know what they signed off on march 11th was to punish the Cowboys and Redskins for violating the illegal cap.
  16. NinePointOh

    NinePointOh Well-Known Member

    1,583 Messages
    78 Likes Received
    I wasn't among those touting the moral superiority of the NFL's position at the time, so you're preaching to the choir.

    That's why I find it strange that the same person could have found these arguments so compelling two years ago, and still apparently be willing to jeopardize the league's existence (according to the arguments they believed before) just to get revenge against Mara for a $5 million/yr penalty.
  17. sonnyboy

    sonnyboy Benched

    7,355 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Maybe? The league isn't going anywhere. Just the system I have grown tired of. I think I'd prefer something closer to baseball where 7-10 teams(including our Cowboys) have a clear advantage over the rest of the league.

    Cry foul all you want but I know one thing for certain and that's that Yankee and Red Sox fans enjoy their winning seasons and championships as much as any other fan in any other sport.

    And if we end up in a system that favors the Cowboys, Skins, Giants, Eagles, Jets, Patriots, Bears and perhaps a few others, so be it.
  18. Primetime42

    Primetime42 Well-Known Member

    3,384 Messages
    658 Likes Received

    Destroy the salary cap. Destroy revenue sharing. Talk of contracting franchise. You think the league hates us now? It'd be a freakin' dream come true for me.

    I'm extremely bitter over how the salary cap robbed us of at LEAST two more Super Bowls in the 1990s. I want retribution!
  19. bysbox1

    bysbox1 Well-Known Member

    1,210 Messages
    122 Likes Received
    I agree. And they waited until the appeal decision was made and filed it 24 hours after. The appeal was basically the artillery they needed.

    This is going to get real ugly.
  20. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,896 Messages
    13,062 Likes Received
    I think it's pretty transparent. Some people saw 'union' and battle lines were drawn. It is a Texas team. People in this country generally do not bother with specifics unless its particularly egregious. Most times people advocate for groups or individuals. de Toqueville and all that. It's just that here the group is now the Dallas Cowboys instead of a union.

    You are right on saying that its the same behavior.

Share This Page