NFL will proceed cautiously on Vick

[Stautner]

Forget it! You did'nt read the whole thing apparently...your just bullheaded...

Again, the NFL does not have to cover anything they do.

I tried....

You never tried - you never even ONCE told me what I said that you disagreed with.

Just ONCE - tell me what it is that you disagree with.

TELL ME and I will respond.

ONE LINE - TWO LINES - WHATEVER - TELL ME WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH - PUT IT INTO WORDS AND I WILL RESPOND

I CAN'T RESPOND TO SOMETHING IF YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL ME WHAT YOUR ISSUE IS.



If the best you can do is say I'm wrong of some unknown, unspecified misstatement because I didn't read 20 pages worth of a thread that contains some unknown, unspecified dispute of, ponce again for emphasis, my unknown, unspecified comment .............

well, that leaves you with you with an unknown, unspecified point.



It leads me to wonder ....... do you even know what it is that you are disagreeing with?


ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TELL ME WHAT SPECIFICALLY YOU DISAGREE WITH .......... CAN YOU DO THAT?

 

[Sasquatch]

hey smart guy, OLD CBA

the NEW CBA says you don't have to be found legally guilty

"While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful.
"Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime."

For what it's worth, I think you're right, and suspect the Falcons will take some sort of action to restore their tarnished reputation even before the NFL acts.

 

[5Stars]

You never tried - you never even ONCE told me what I said that you disagreed with.

Just ONCE - tell me what it is that you disagree with.

TELL ME and I will respond.

ONE LINE - TWO LINES - WHATEVER - TEELL ME WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH - PUT IT INTO WORDS.


If the best you can do is say I'm wrong of some unknown, unspecified misstatement because I didn't read 20 pages worth of a thread that contains some unknown, unspecified dipute of my unknown, unspecified comment .............

well, that leaves you with you with an unknown, unspecified point.


It leads me to wonder ....... do you even know what it is that you are disagreeing with?

Once more! The NFL does not have to abide by the Federal Labor laws to dismiss a player! They can do whatever they deem necessary to protect the reputation and financial investment of the NFL.

If they wanted to ban Vick for life, guilty or not, they can. Now, the NFL and the NFLPA cannot prohibit Vick from working again in the AFL or Burger King, and they cannot prohibit a player from playing in the league base on race, religion, martial status and some stuff like that, but they do not have to abide by the rules of the courts!

You have been bringing up the law in all of this and that is what you are wrong about! The labor laws of the land and the rules of the NFL are seperate issues, seperate entities, period! Playing in the NFL is not a right, it is a privilege...under labor laws everyone has a right to work somewhere, but in the NFL and the NFLPA and the basic contracts (which you DID NOT READ) that a player signs when he comes into the league stipulates this...if you embarass the league in any the Commish feels, he can boot you out...done!

Now, then...you go ahead and be condesending, I've seen you do it time and time again...just remember, the policies of the NFL and the NFLPA vs. the labor laws of the land are two different matters altogeather!

If you were not so damn lazy and ACTUALLY read the entire thread, all the points that you bring up have already been addressed and put to bed...

So...the rest is up to you. Don't compare what the law has to say about labor and what the NFL can do...that is the lesson!

But, I'm done, really...you're just to lazy or bullheaded to find out what the truth is.

I'll tell you...I learned from reading it, and so did some of the Zone lawyers and Fuzzy did too...he even admitted he was wrong, and he is not dumb.

So, go about believing what you want...or go get educated, then come back with your tail tucked between your legs and tell us you are "sorry"...

 

[Stautner]

For what it's worth, I think you're right, and suspect the Falcons will take some sort of action to restore their tarnished reputation even before the NFL acts.

For what it's worth, I think you are right to - I think they will take some action at some point .......

Despite what you may garner from the posts of others, I am not saying they won't.

All I'm saying is that the NFL will be very careful to reach a comfort level that there is enough evidence to take action (meaning severe action - not a slap on the wrist) before actually doing so.

It's that simple, yet I've been accused of many things I ahve not said or indicated just because others want the proccess to be immediate and swift.

 

[5Stars]

For what it's worth, I think you are right to - I think they will take some action at some point .......

Despite what you may garner from the posts of others, I am not saying they won't.

All I'm saying is that the NFL will be very careful to reach a comfort level that there is enough evidence to take action (meaning severe action - not a slap on the wrist) before actually doing so.

It's that simple, yet I've been accused of many things I ahve not said or indicated just because others want the proccess to be immediate and swift.

WHAT I AM SAYING is that the NFL is bound by the same laws regarding labor pratices that the rest of the United States is .......

and just as ANY employer has to be careful to provide due process and be certain that the grounds for termination are legitimate and verifyable, and that they aren't acting prematurely and without sufficient evidence to act, the NFL is bound by the same standard.



This is what you are saying and it is wrong!

 

[Stautner]

Once more! The NFL does not have to abide by the Federal Labor laws to dismiss a player! They can do whatever they deem necessary to protect the reputation and financial investment of the NFL.

If they wanted to ban Vick for life, guilty or not, they can. Now, the NFL and the NFLPA cannot prohibit Vick from working again in the AFL or Burger King, and they cannot prohibit a player from playing in the league base on race, religion, martial status and some stuff like that, but they do not have to abide by the rules of the courts!

You have been bringing up the law in all of this and that is what you are wrong about! The labor laws of the land and the rules of the NFL are seperate issues, seperate entities, period! Playing in the NFL is not a right, it is a privilege...under labor laws everyone has a right to work somewhere, but in the NFL and the NFLPA and the basic contracts (which you DID NOT READ) that a player signs when he comes into the league stipulates this...if you embarass the league in any the Commish feels, he can boot you out...done!

Now, then...you go ahead and be condesending, I've seen you do it time and time again...just remember, the policies of the NFL and the NFLPA vs. the labor laws of the land are two different matters altogeather!

If you were not so damn lazy and ACTUALLY read the entire thread, all the points that you bring up have already been addressed and put to bed...

So...the rest is up to you. Don't compare what the law has to say about labor and what the NFL can do...that is the lesson!

But, I'm done, really...you're just to lazy or bullheaded to find out what the truth is.

I'll tell you...I learned from reading it, and so did some of the Zone lawyers and Fuzzy did too...he even admitted he was wrong, and he is not dumb.

So, go about believing what you want...or go get educated, then come back with your tail tucked between your legs and tell us you are "sorry"...

WOW - so hostile that I have previously not responded to an issue that you never even articulated before.

At least now I know ..... it's been like trying to get a toddler to tell you what he is upset about but he doesn't know the words.


But here's my response.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THE NFL CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST A PLAYER THAT EMBARASSES THE LEAGUE.

Did you hear it that time?

All I've said is that they need to be comfortable that Vick HAS done that rather than just be accused that he has done that.

And I've said many times that I expect that they eventually will get to that point - I just don't think it will be a rushed decision.

UNDERSTAND?


As for your point about playing in the NFL being a right and not a privilege and therefore the NFL is exempt from labor laws, well by that definition then McDonald's is exempt as well, because no one has a right to work at McDonald's either.

Nevertheless, what I think you are missing is that an anti-trust exemption is not the same as an exemption from all labor laws. The rules are different, no doubt, but you can't ruin a guy's reputation and his credibility without their being some due process - even if within the league.


As for the CBA - it even calls for due process - it does not say they can dump or take severe action against anyone at any time for any reason regardless of how baseless.


Assuming these charges aren't baseless, then I assume at some point the NFL will take action.


NOW CALMLY RESPOND IF YOU WISH.

 

[5Stars]

WHAT I AM SAYING is that the NFL is bound by the same laws regarding labor pratices that the rest of the United States is .......

and just as ANY employer has to be careful to provide due process and be certain that the grounds for termination are legitimate and verifyable, and that they aren't acting prematurely and without sufficient evidence to act, the NFL is bound by the same standard.



This is what you are saying and it is wrong!

NOW CALMLY RESPOND IF YOU WISH.

You too!

 

[Stautner]

NOW CALMLY RESPOND IF YOU WISH.

You too!

When it comes to wrongful termination or lack of due process - which is the topic we are talking about - yes they are subject to the same laws.


The difference is in the draft - the way of determinig who employs each player - something I mentioned a LONG way back in one of these Vick threads.

Again, anti-trust exemptions don't provide exclusions from all the laws of the land.



Now, instead of attempting to pit my words against each other, I would be happy for you to actually discuss the content of what I said.

 

[5Stars]

As for your point about playing in the NFL being a right and not a privilege and therefore the NFL is exempt from labor laws, well by that definition then McDonald's is exempt as well, because no one has a right to work at McDonald's either.

****-coo, ****-coo....where did I say that it was a right to play in the NFL? I said it was a privilege...

(in my best Iceman voice...."you and reading comprehension are not the best of friends, huh?")

If McDonalds drafted their workers and paid them millions up on millions because they made the best hamburger in the world, then that is a privilege, not a right!

But you have a right to put in for a job at McDonalds...go for it! I think you really need something to do.

 

[Stautner]

****-coo, ****-coo....where did I say that it was a right to play in the NFL? I said it was a privilege...

(in my best Iceman voice...."you and reading comprehension are not the best of friends, huh?")

If McDonalds drafted their workers and paid them millions up on millions because they made the best hamburger in the world, then that is a privilege, not a right!

But you have a right to put in for a job at McDonalds...go for it! I think you really need something to do.

I'm sorry - I said that backwards - I know that's what you said and I meant the McDaonalds comment to fit with your intent, I just typed it wrong.

So put that in the right order (that working for BOTH McDonalds and the NFL is a priviledge rather than a right) and proceed - I will be happy to respond to anything you have to say about the content of my post.

 

[5Stars]

NOW CALMLY RESPOND IF YOU WISH.

You too!

Please do...!

 

[Stautner]

Please do...!

You just responded to your own post - the point of that is pretty hazy.

 

[5Stars]

You just responded to your own post - the point of that is pretty hazy.

You take care...you are still my good buddy...(kind of stupid, but a good guy nevertheless)...

 

[Stautner]

You take care...you are still my good buddy...(kind of stupid, but a good guy nevertheless)...

I don't mind the debate - even heated - but when it comes down to having to drag it out of you what it is that you even have an issue with .......

like this - I've invited you to discuss the content of my words, and you use the word stupid, but again, you can't even point out what you think is stupid.

It took about 10 posts to get you to actually say anything about what your issue was - your only argument that it was to be found somewhere in a 20 page thread about Pacman.

Once I finally drug it out of you and I responded, instead of trying to discuss the content of my words you merely show me one statement out of context and another that I merely wrote something backwards.

Discussion is two sides putting out ideas and thoughts - not one side having to drag the ideas and thoughts out of the other when they claim some unspecified difference of opinion.

Look it up ........

If you can't or wont even say what the grievance is, why indicate you have one?

 

[burmafrd]

This going down the exact same road as the pacman thread.
Vick has not been an angel. Remember the Ron Mexico/herpes mess?
The carrier with the false bottom? There have been other things going on since college that showed what Vick is really all about. Blank did a real good job of buying people off and keeping things quiet. But the pattern has been there for quite a while.

 

[5Stars]

I
Look it up ........

If you can't or wont even say what the grievance is, why indicate you have one?

One more time, lazy! Read the 20 page thread the you MADE ME FIND! You wanted it, I found it for you, and you resist reading it?

It will set you free...

Or, go find abersonic...and argue with him for some entertainment.

Did you read the CBA, old and new? Did you read the player contract and what it all entails?

The "stupid" comment was about why you won't go through the 20 page thread to find all the answers to what you think is right...

Carry on, because I'm done here....

 

[Stautner]

This going down the exact same road as the pacman thread.
Vick has not been an angel. Remember the Ron Mexico/herpes mess?
The carrier with the false bottom? There have been other things going on since college that showed what Vick is really all about. Blank did a real good job of buying people off and keeping things quiet. But the pattern has been there for quite a while.

I actually don't remember the Ron Mexico/herpes mess though saw someone else mention it. If you don't mind tell me what that is about.

AS for things that have been going on since college, I'm not sure what you mean.

Shooting the bird at fans is something I remember - which by the way I think would have warrented swift action of some sort because there was clear, undeniable evidence.

And I know Vick isn't a choir boy, but Pacman has had 5-6 run-ins with the law IN THE PAST YEAR - which is the ONLY YEAR in his NFL career ....... he's on pace for a total of about 30 after 4 more years.

PLUS Pacman has admitted to wrongdoings in the past and I believe actually has a conviction under his belt.

It's not the same.

 

[Stautner]

One more time, lazy! Read the 20 page thread the you MADE ME FIND! You wanted it, I found it for you, and you resist reading it?

It will set you free...

Or, go find abersonic...and argue with him for some entertainment.

Did you read the CBA, old and new? Did you read the player contract and what it all entails?

The "stupid" comment was about why you won't go through the 20 page thread to find all the answers to what you think is right...

Carry on, because I'm done here....

In the 5Stars court of law, with 5Stars prosecuting Vick, here's how it would go ........


5Stars: Judge, I have written proof that Michael Vick is guilty.

Judge: Please pass it up to me and I'll consider it.

5Stars: No Judge - you find it.

Judge: This is your case to make, where is your evidence?

5Stars: You're lazy Judge, you find it.

Judge: I don't even know where it is.

5Stars: It's in the room next door.

Judge: It's 20 pages - what is it I need to find.

5Stars: I'm not going to tell you - you are lazy - read the whole thing.

Judge: But you are the one that supposedly knows what I am looking for - there is 20 pages of differeing opinion here.

5Stars: You are lazy.



THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THIS CASE YOU AT LEAST KNOW THE COMPLAINT - WITH ME YOU CAN'T EVEN EXPRESS WHAT YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH.

 

[5Stars]

In the 5Stars court of law, with 5Stars prosecuting Vick, here's how it would go ........


5Stars: Judge, I have written proof that Michael Vick is guilty.

Judge: Please pass it up to me and I'll consider it.

5Stars: No Judge - you find it.

Judge: This is your case to make, where is your evidence?

5Stars: You're lazy Judge, you find it.

Judge: I don't even know where it is.

5Stars: It's in the room next door.

Judge: It's 20 pages - what is it I need to find.

5Stars: I'm not going to tell you - you are lazy - read the whole thing.

Judge: But you are the one that supposedly knows what I am looking for - there is 20 pages of differeing opinion here.

5Stars: You are lazy.



THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THIS CASE YOU AT LEAST KNOW THE COMPLAINT - WITH ME YOU CAN'T EVEN EXPRESS WHAT YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH.

There you go again! Bringing the law into this! That is what I'm disagreeing with...

You seem to think that the NFL and the NFLPA in conjunction have to abide with punishment after the labor laws have been broken and that is not the case, lazy!

If Goodall woke up tonight and said that he needs to suspend Vick...he could! Is that simple enough for you, lazy?

In other words...learn the meaning between what the law says and what the Commish can do at his descretion...it's all their, lazy!



It's kind of on the same level of NFL contracts are not binding...wheras in a court of law they would. It's an agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA because the NFL is a privilege and if the Cimmish have to or want too dismiss a player because of bad conduct? He could do it today, and he probably won't have to worry about doing it...because of YOUR repucussions thing from labor laws and such..


That was the agreement....
Get it?

In the jobs we have, if they fire you because you have a tendency to :gassy1: all the time and they fire you? Now, that is a different story!

 

[LenS]

Your quote:



I have posted three times, at least, that the NFL is exempt from some antitrust laws because of their status as a professional sport.

You keep saying they are bound by federal labor laws, like every other business. THEY AREN'T! Nothing has changed in regards to professional sports since Judge Landis blackballed one third of the Chicago White Sox team in the '20's. After they were acquitted of any crime.

That is about as plain as I can make it.

I think that you're confusing Major League Baseball with the other pro sports. MLB does have an anti-trust exemption from Congress. It dates back to before WWII and probably before the NFL existed. The NFL does have to comply with all labor laws. But they can do things that other industries can't because their entire business has a CBA with a single union. For example, a draft is legal because it is part of the CBA with the NFLPA. The CBA's language does permit teams and the league to zap players for off the field behavior so therefore the NFL can do it, something that say IBM can't do.

If you'll recall, the USFL won it's antitrust suit with the NFL. However, the jury also decided that the USFL hadn't suffered any financial damages so the practical effect of the decision was moot.