Judge orders settlement date on Peterson

[Nightman]

certainly a factor but don't under-estimate a player financial motives on 'games played' contract.

he also has 1.8m in reachable sack total incentives if he plays in 14+ games.

 

[Galian Beast]

You were completely wrong about the Hardy appeal with Henderson so I don't know if it is wise to throw around snide remarks when people have legitimate questions.

Remind me again how I was wrong...

 

[Nightman]

Remind me again how I was wrong...

You said Henderson wouldn't issue a ruling, repeatedly and rudely.

You said the Peterson appeal and the contempt order took precedence even though Hardy never filed anything with the Federal Courts.

 

[Galian Beast]

You said Henderson wouldn't issue a ruling, repeatedly and rudely.

You said the Peterson appeal and the contempt order took precedence even though Hardy never filed anything with the Federal Courts.

Please quote me to where I ever said that he wouldn't issue a ruling. Never said that.

I didn't say it took precedence. I only said that he had been waiting many more months, so I didn't see why people expected to see a quick ruling.

This is what happens when people don't listen to what you actually say.

 

[Galian Beast]

You said Henderson wouldn't issue a ruling, repeatedly and rudely.

You said the Peterson appeal and the contempt order took precedence even though Hardy never filed anything with the Federal Courts.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/no-g...oo-many-days-later.324106/page-9#post-6163687

 

[Nightman]

Please quote me to where I ever said that he wouldn't issue a ruling. Never said that.

I didn't say it took precedence. I only said that he had been waiting many more months, so I didn't see why people expected to see a quick ruling.

This is what happens when people don't listen to what you actually say.

I know what you said and you know what you said

That is why you were quiet when the Hardy ruling came back

 

[Nightman]

Please quote me to where I ever said that he wouldn't issue a ruling. Never said that.

I didn't say it took precedence. I only said that he had been waiting many more months, so I didn't see why people expected to see a quick ruling.

This is what happens when people don't listen to what you actually say.

Here is one

They will have to address Hardy after Doty forces them to following the contempt hearing.

Yes, it was no coincidence that they chose Henderson, as I said in the topic I made on this before.

Again, I wish I could say this slowly for you.

Doty sent the issue BACK to Henderson for FURTHER arbitration...

To which he has NOT arbitrated.

I've seen a lot of conclusions here that are entirely off base.

The reason why Henderson hasn't ruled is because he isn't a neutral arbitrator, and he is in lock step with the league.

He was supposed to have a ruling on Peterson months ago, we've still yet to see that, but you're asking where the decision on Hardy is?

Someone has to force the NFL's hand, and that is why the august 13th deadline is the only thing that matters.

Either a) the nfl acts before then and complies with Doty's directions or b) they wait it out and are found in contempt.

As to the motivations behind the NFL's decision here, I don't think anyone knows or can accurately speculate or predict their next move.

It would be nice to know when the 8th circuit will hear the appeal.

 

[Galian Beast]

Here is one

LOL, not a single quote of me saying that Hardy wouldn't receive a ruling before Peterson.

 

[Nightman]

LOL, not a single quote of me saying that Hardy wouldn't receive a ruling before Peterson.

Way to move the goalposts........GAME OVER

 

[Galian Beast]

Way to move the goalposts........GAME OVER

That is EXACTLY what you said I said... moving the goal posts? You've become a self parody.

 

[burmafrd]

seems clear that the NFL owners and goodell have decided that the court of public opinion means much more then the Federal Courts and therefore they are willing to take a beating there. Of course I happen to think continually pissing off Doty is not a smart thing as regards the future.

 

[DogFace]

His punishment is not being handed down by the judicial system. You do know that, correct?

Yes. But it has to do with the process. As in once the judge says, or possibly says, the 4 games was not consistent with the CBA then it will be reduced.

 

[DogFace]

I don't think anyone was against the judicial process. The argument was that the judicial process and the NFL punishing players regardless of a judicial process are separate issues.
Now that these cases have gone to a judge, it becomes a judicial/legal issue.
And mind you, the court isn't saying that the NFL doesn't have the right to punish players, just that the NFL has to abide by its own policies.

I disagree. There were some posters who were saying he was defiinetly guilty from the beginning when they had very little knowledge of what really happened.

Yes. It's clear the court isn't telling the NFL that they can't punish players. It's telling them to stick by the rules they established in the CBA.

 

[burmafrd]

quite a few of the more sanctimonious types here said he was guilty from day one and never changed that despite all the evidence that called that into question that came out later.

 

[tyke1doe]

I disagree. There were some posters who were saying he was defiinetly guilty from the beginning when they had very little knowledge of what really happened.

That's not how I interpreted your statement.

Those against the judicial process please let us all know how it's flawed in this case. Seems as though Hardy, an American citizen, can't be convicted and sentenced unreasonably despite what you think you know.

Maybe you can clarify this statement because I'm not understanding why you would think someone was against the judicial process.

Are you saying because the judicial process dismissed his case, he shouldn't be punished?

If that is the case, your statement makes a bit more sense. However, that leads into the issue I raised, i.e., that even though his case was dismissed, the NFL still can punish him based on its findings - whatever those findings may be.

 

[Rogah]

quite a few of the more sanctimonious types here said he was guilty from day one and never changed that despite all the evidence that called that into question that came out later.

Yes, it's amazing how some people make their decisions on day 1 and are so closed minded that they aren't willing to listen to further evidence that comes out despite all the evidence that calls the original determination into question for any reasonable person, huh?

 

[DogFace]

That's not how I interpreted your statement.



Maybe you can clarify this statement because I'm not understanding why you would think someone was against the judicial process.

Are you saying because the judicial process dismissed his case, he shouldn't be punished?

If that is the case, your statement makes a bit more sense. However, that leads into the issue I raised, i.e., that even though his case was dismissed, the NFL still can punish him based on its findings - whatever those findings may be.

It is clear you sometimes interpret things in a unique way.

There were some who were sure he was guilty. The first part of the judicial process said otherwise.

Now the second part of the judicial process could reduce his suspension more or eliminate it.

I feel some are upset by this.

 

[tyke1doe]

It is clear you sometimes interpret things in a unique way.

There were some who were sure he was guilty. The first part of the judicial process said otherwise.

Now the second part of the judicial process could reduce his suspension more or eliminate it.

I feel some are upset by this.

I've been a newspaper reporter for more than 25 years. I pride myself on communicating clearly. And because I do, I guess I expect it of others.

Your initial statement was confusing to me. That's why I responded.

But I'm going to leave it here. Peace.

 

[DogFace]

I've been a newspaper reporter for more than 25 years. I pride myself on communicating clearly. And because I do, I guess I expect it of others.

Your initial statement was confusing to me. That's why I responded.

But I'm going to leave it here. Peace.

Sorry I confused you. It was worded oddly and unclear.