No Greg Hardy ruling yet, too many days later

[SouthernOregonStud]

There's no doubt in my mind that they are delaying it as long as possible to push the court date they know is coming as far down the road as they can. The further they push it, the more likely he misses more games no matter what the ruling is(baring an injunction). Stuff like this really gets under my skin. It's abuse of power.

All of you, I know I didn't specify each comment but since I've written, I've googled & read the posts, like this one & the more I read, the more I believe this delay is fully on purpose & I can only hope, no matter what happens, Goody-Crap-Head, does or says, that he buries himself in the crap heap, "HE HAS CREATED!"

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the NFLPA is sitting on its hands. They know the longer this process takes, the less likely his court hearing is completed before the season(as does the NFL who's counting on this imo). The only thing I can think of is the NFLPA is negotiating a much shorter suspension, or they've been given some indication it will be significantly reduced.

Because the bottom line for the NFLPA is the same as the bottom line for the NFL. It's all about money. Neither the NFL nor the NFLPA want people to think that their stance on DV is completely bogus because it has the potential to cost them money. P&G pulled out of the breast cancer awareness promotion last year. If Greg Hardy were to have his suspension entirely cut tomorrow, it would be the biggest story on ESPN and it would be widely criticized. Sponsors basically have 2 months to just sit and hear about how awful the NFL is. But, let the decision come somewhere closer to the season and the combination of more time elapsed and more available news would allow it to get buried a bit.

If sponsors were to drop, that means the salary cap doesn't increase as much. If that happens, players get less money. The NFL and the PA will quietly work out of a resolution just as they did with the cap penalties. They're going to do whatever is in the best interest of all the players. If that means Greg Hardy gets put on the back burner for a bit, then that's what they're going to do.

 

[AzorAhai]

Because the bottom line for the NFLPA is the same as the bottom line for the NFL. It's all about money. Neither the NFL nor the NFLPA want people to think that their stance on DV is completely bogus because it has the potential to cost them money. P&G pulled out of the breast cancer awareness promotion last year. If Greg Hardy were to have his suspension entirely cut tomorrow, it would be the biggest story on ESPN and it would be widely criticized. Sponsors basically have 2 months to just sit and hear about how awful the NFL is. But, let the decision come somewhere closer to the season and the combination of more time elapsed and more available news would allow it to get buried a bit.

If sponsors were to drop, that means the salary cap doesn't increase as much. If that happens, players get less money. The NFL and the PA will quietly work out of a resolution just as they did with the cap penalties. They're going to do whatever is in the best interest of all the players. If that means Greg Hardy gets put on the back burner for a bit, then that's what they're going to do.

I think its more that the NFLPA is horrible. MLB and the NBA are much better imo. Also, allowing the NFL to railroad its players (not just Hardy) is bad during election time.

Anyways, this whole thing was stupid to begin with from the NFL. I've had zero education in PR, but common sense would say they handled this wrong. It has been kept in the spotlight by the NFL itself. Fighting so hard to make this "stance" has drug these 3 cases out, thus worsening the PR. The smart thing to do would have been to hold a PC and tell everyone

"We don't condone DV in any way, but due to binding legal agreements we are limited with the punishment we can levy at this time. We will swiftly partner with the NFLPA to come up with a more severe form of punishment for any future DV charges that reflect our true feelings better, while doing everything in our power to prevent more DV cases."

They would have taken a hit, but it would have been over quickly and things would be back to normal. Best thing about that statement? Its true. Now they are just keeping this in the news cycle, fighting a losing fight with nothing to really gain. Nobody thinks this is about the rights and wrongs. It's about saving face and saving face for an extended period doesn't work.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think its more that the NFLPA is horrible. MLB and the NBA are much better imo. Also, allowing the NFL to railroad its players (not just Hardy) is bad during election time.

Anyways, this whole thing was stupid to begin with from the NFL. I've had zero education in PR, but common sense would say they handled this wrong. It has been kept in the spotlight by the NFL itself. Fighting so hard to make this "stance" has drug these 3 cases out, thus worsening the PR. The smart thing to do would have been to hold a PC and tell everyone

"We don't condone DV in any way, but due to binding legal agreements we are limited with the punishment we can levy at this time. We will swiftly partner with the NFLPA to come up with a more severe form of punishment for any future DV charges that reflect our true feelings better, while doing everything in our power to prevent more DV cases."

They would have taken a hit, but it would have been over quickly and things would be back to normal. Best thing about that statement? Its true. Now they are just keeping this in the news cycle, fighting a losing fight with nothing to really gain. Nobody thinks this is about the rights and wrongs. It's about saving face and saving face for an extended period doesn't work.

Binding legal agreements didn't stop the NFLPA from jumping on board with the cap penalties. Nobody is going to accept that as a reasonable argument because everything is negotiable between the NFL and the NFLPA. If the situation came down to the loss of a sponsorship or Greg Hardy's suspension, the NFLPA would fold like a lawn chair because they're going to do what is in the best interest of all players, not just Greg Hardy.

 

[rpntex]

Peterson got paid. I don't think Hardy did.

Yes he did. All players on that commissioner's "exempt list" still get paid.

 

[rpntex]

It's now been 4 weeks. a full moth. and this NFL BS is still going on. everyone knows Henderson is going to rubber stamp Goodell's 10 game suspension. there is no reason for it to take this long. yet they are pushing it back because they know it hurts the cowboys. the more they push it back. the longer it takes to get it to court. this is so blatant. yet you will have some do gooder cowboys fans come on here and pretend there is no bias for the NFL NY office, that is full of Giants fans.

Good gosh, we have some absolutely ridiculous posters on this site. If the NFL's aim was to push things back so far that it was GUARANTEED the Cowboys don't have Hardy, they'd have waited until September to announce the suspension to begin with.

Here's how it will go...I'll type slow for the "challenged" few (sorry, I don't have time for pictures). Once the final resolution of the appeal s made known, Hardy will either accept it or file suit.

Scenario #1 - Hardy accepts the final resolution (mat likely a reduction of the suspension).

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. His suspension takes effect the Monday before the season opener.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. HIS SUSPENSION STILL TAKES EFFECT THE MONDAY BEFORE THE SEASON OPENER.

Scenario #2 - the suspension is upheld, or not reduced to one of Hardy's liking.

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. Any suspension will not take effect until the case is resolved by the court.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. ANY SUSPENSION WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED BY THE COURT.

The NFL has nothing to gain by intentionally dragging this out. Sorry if that doesn't fit the tinfoil hat agenda.

 

[AzorAhai]

Binding legal agreements didn't stop the NFLPA from jumping on board with the cap penalties. Nobody is going to accept that as a reasonable argument because everything is negotiable between the NFL and the NFLPA. If the situation came down to the loss of a sponsorship or Greg Hardy's suspension, the NFLPA would fold like a lawn chair because they're going to do what is in the best interest of all players, not just Greg Hardy.

Yet they've had all kinds of backlash and the NFLPA is fighting for Hardy and fought for Peterson AND Rice. This is really a ridiculous argument for you to even attempt to make seeing as they ARE fighting for the players. You're trying to claim the NFLPA will let certain players get railroaded when thats the exact opposite of what they're doing and what their job is. About the level of ridiculousness I've grown to expect from you though.

 

[Jarv]

Two dates that I look at...

August 13th - That is when the contempt of court hearing will be heard against the NFL.

August 21st - (Approximately 4 months after Hardy's lawyer files to expung his charges) Chris Fialko, the attorney handling Hardy’s expungement is quoted, “Every day Americans who have misdemeanor charges dismissed, file for expungement of charges from their criminal record.” Hardy’s case is no different, and his charges, given a clean background check, should be expunged in about four months.

The expungement ends the back and forth of "He was found guilty by a judge" and "he paid her off, that's why he was cleard and didn't have a jury trial".

It will be interesting how the charges of "Conduct detremental to the leauge" will hold up, once the expungement of charges is removed from Hardy's record. Clean and clear record. IMHO this was a brilliant move thought of back in April.

What is the NFL going to do, fine him because he was accused, then just skip the part where he was cleared?

The two weeks before the season starts are going to be real interesting, especially since the expungement is tentitivly scheduled after the contempt hearing.

 

[Alexander]

Two dates that I look at...

August 13th - That is when the contempt of court hearing will be heard against the NFL.

August 21st - (Approximately 4 months after Hardy's lawyer files to expung his charges) Chris Fialko, the attorney handling Hardy’s expungement is quoted, “Every day Americans who have misdemeanor charges dismissed, file for expungement of charges from their criminal record.” Hardy’s case is no different, and his charges, given a clean background check, should be expunged in about four months.

The expungement ends the back and forth of "He was found guilty by a judge" and "he paid her off, that's why he was cleard and didn't have a jury trial".

It will be interesting how the charges of "Conduct detremental to the leauge" will hold up, once the expungement of charges is removed from Hardy's record. Clean and clear record. IMHO this was a brilliant move thought of back in April.

What is the NFL going to do, fine him because he was accused, then just skip the part where he was cleared?

The two weeks before the season starts are going to be real interesting, especially since the expungement is tentitivly scheduled after the contempt hearing.

Good post.

There is clearly a reason for the dragging of the feet. This is a delicate situation that the NFL and Player's Association needs to handle right. It is all PR at this stage, not about affirming or overturning the suspension. Hardy is being used as far as I am concerned.

 

[erod]

I expect a ruling today, which is Day 22.

And I think Jarv's post was spot on, too.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Good gosh, we have some absolutely ridiculous posters on this site. If the NFL's aim was to push things back so far that it was GUARANTEED the Cowboys don't have Hardy, they'd have waited until September to announce the suspension to begin with.

Here's how it will go...I'll type slow for the "challenged" few (sorry, I don't have time for pictures). Once the final resolution of the appeal s made known, Hardy will either accept it or file suit.

Scenario #1 - Hardy accepts the final resolution (mat likely a reduction of the suspension).

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. His suspension takes effect the Monday before the season opener.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. HIS SUSPENSION STILL TAKES EFFECT THE MONDAY BEFORE THE SEASON OPENER.

Scenario #2 - the suspension is upheld, or not reduced to one of Hardy's liking.

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. Any suspension will not take effect until the case is resolved by the court.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. ANY SUSPENSION WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED BY THE COURT.

The NFL has nothing to gain by intentionally dragging this out. Sorry if that doesn't fit the tinfoil hat agenda.

So this is the first time I've seen scenario 2. Seems plausible. In that case, Hardy would be on the field opening night.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yet they've had all kinds of backlash and the NFLPA is fighting for Hardy and fought for Peterson AND Rice. This is really a ridiculous argument for you to even attempt to make seeing as they ARE fighting for the players. You're trying to claim the NFLPA will let certain players get railroaded when thats the exact opposite of what they're doing and what their job is.

The question was about why it's taking so long. Of course they will go to bat for the players, I think they'll also work with the NFL for the best possible outcome just as they have done before.

Nesting the decision inside a bunch of stories reduces the PR hit.

About the level of ridiculousness I've grown to expect from you though.

Then answer your own question. Why isn't the NFLPA pressing the issue?

Either the process isn't taking any longer than the parties involved expected, in which case this entire thread is a joke.

Or, as you have said, the NFLPA is sitting on their hands.

Why would they sit on their hands and not "do their job"?

 

[AzorAhai]

The question was about why it's taking so long. Of course they will go to bat for the players, I think they'll also work with the NFL for the best possible outcome just as they have done before.

Nesting the decision inside a bunch of stories reduces the PR hit.



Then answer your own question. Why isn't the NFLPA pressing the issue?

Either the process isn't taking any longer than the parties involved expected, in which case this entire thread is a joke.

Or, as you have said, the NFLPA is sitting on their hands.

Why would they sit on their hands and not "do their job"?

They are an incredibly weak union? They've proven that multiple times over. They got screwed in the cba, the capped uncapped year and now these suspensions that they are a spectator in. It's the players fault for electing these idiots.

 

[Nightman]

They are an incredibly weak union? They've proven that multiple times over. They got screwed in the cba, the capped uncapped year and now these suspensions that they are a spectator in. It's the players fault for electing these idiots.

They have actually stepped up their game lately with stronger rhetoric and the contempt of court motion.

But the League is clearly stalling and hopes to win by default even if they lose in the Courts. Being this vindictive with 3 players that had zero history with trouble is why they keep losing in court.

If they had just stuck by their own rules and gave them each 2 games it would have been all over last November. Any sponsors that left would be replaced in 5 minutes. Live sports with numbers like the NFL gets is a gigantic cash machine.

 

[AzorAhai]

Good gosh, we have some absolutely ridiculous posters on this site. If the NFL's aim was to push things back so far that it was GUARANTEED the Cowboys don't have Hardy, they'd have waited until September to announce the suspension to begin with.

Here's how it will go...I'll type slow for the "challenged" few (sorry, I don't have time for pictures). Once the final resolution of the appeal s made known, Hardy will either accept it or file suit.

Scenario #1 - Hardy accepts the final resolution (mat likely a reduction of the suspension).

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. His suspension takes effect the Monday before the season opener.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy works out with the team, practices all the way though training camp, and plays in all preseason games. HIS SUSPENSION STILL TAKES EFFECT THE MONDAY BEFORE THE SEASON OPENER.

Scenario #2 - the suspension is upheld, or not reduced to one of Hardy's liking.

If it's announced tomorrow, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. Any suspension will not take effect until the case is resolved by the court.

If it's announced as late as the Monday before the season opener, Hardy Files suit and asks the court for a temporary injunction to delay the suspension while the case is being litigated. ANY SUSPENSION WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED BY THE COURT.

The NFL has nothing to gain by intentionally dragging this out. Sorry if that doesn't fit the tinfoil hat agenda.

You're assuming an injunction will be granted when its a very real possibility that it won't. The NFL knows that. No injunction means the longer they delay it, the longer he's ineligible to play regardless.

Nobody is wearing any tinfoil hats on this issue. The league came down hard to make up for Rice. If they aren't trying to drag their feet, why take so long to announce the suspension AND the appeal decision? It took almost 2 months to announce the suspension, over a month for him to get an appeal hearing and now over 3 weeks to get a ruling on that. The NFL is dragging its feet. Its not something only conspiracy theorists are speculating on.

 

[AzorAhai]

They have actually stepped up their game lately with stronger rhetoric and the contempt of court motion.

But the League is clearly stalling and hopes to win by default even if they lose in the Courts. Being this vindictive with 3 players that had zero history with trouble is why they keep losing in court.

If they had just stuck by their own rules and gave them each 2 games it would have been all over last November. Any sponsors that left would be replaced in 5 minutes. Live sports with numbers like the NFL gets is a gigantic cash machine.

They didn't have much choice really. There has been a lot of player complaints about the NFLPA lately. I'm sure they are feeling a lot of pressure to grow a spine. They are there to fight for the players and should have been doing a better job before. Hopefully this newfound courage they are attempting to show actually lasts.

I don't buy that sponsorship junk either. It would have been a hit at first sure, but within a few months some other sponsor would have jumped right on board.

 

[Sydla]

You're assuming an injunction will be granted when its a very real possibility that it won't. The NFL knows that. No injunction means the longer they delay it, the longer he's ineligible to play regardless.

Nobody is wearing any tinfoil hats on this issue. The league came down hard to make up for Rice. If they aren't trying to drag their feet, why take so long to announce the suspension AND the appeal decision? It took almost 2 months to announce the suspension, over a month for him to get an appeal hearing and now over 3 weeks to get a ruling on that. The NFL is dragging its feet. Its not something only conspiracy theorists are speculating on.

Facts are facts.

It took less than 3 weeks for the NFL to respond to Rice's appeal.

Took like 8 days for the NFL to respond to Peterson's appeal.

We are now over 3 weeks for Hardy. Why? Henderson on a 3 week European vacation?

 

[rpntex]

You're assuming an injunction will be granted when its a very real possibility that it won't. The NFL knows that. No injunction means the longer they delay it, the longer he's ineligible to play regardless.

Nobody is wearing any tinfoil hats on this issue. The league came down hard to make up for Rice. If they aren't trying to drag their feet, why take so long to announce the suspension AND the appeal decision? It took almost 2 months to announce the suspension, over a month for him to get an appeal hearing and now over 3 weeks to get a ruling on that. The NFL is dragging its feet. Its not something only conspiracy theorists are speculating on.

No, the tinfoil hat agenda socirty are thiose who say this is the NFL (and Goodell) persecuting the Cowboys. I agree, they are trying to send a strong message in the public opinion arena after Ray Rice. To me, that's not tinfoil hat-worthy. Those who thnk the league is "out to get" the Cowboys, and using the Hardy case as their vehicle to do so, are the ridiculous ones.

We obviously have a difference of opinion regarding the injunction. I think it's a foregone conclusion that it would be granted, as long as the presiding judge sees a POSSIBILITY that the suspension would be reduced or eliminated.

 

[rpntex]

So this is the first time I've seen scenario 2. Seems plausible. In that case, Hardy would be on the field opening night.

As I said, the league gains no benefit from dragging this out.

 

[AzorAhai]

No, the tinfoil hat agenda socirty are thiose who say this is the NFL (and Goodell) persecuting the Cowboys. I agree, they are trying to send a strong message in the public opinion arena after Ray Rice. To me, that's not tinfoil hat-worthy. Those who thnk the league is "out to get" the Cowboys, and using the Hardy case as their vehicle to do so, are the ridiculous ones.

We obviously have a difference of opinion regarding the injunction. I think it's a foregone conclusion that it would be granted, as long as the presiding judge sees a POSSIBILITY that the suspension would be reduced or eliminated.

Oh yeah in no way do I think this is because of the Cowboys. They may not do them any favors ,but I don't think anything to date is because of the Cowboys. I thought you were referring to something else.

As far as the injunction, I think there is a very good chance that its granted. I would probably put it at 80% that it does. Mainly because of how the NFL handled Rice and Peterson’s case and the disregard they showed for the last Doty ruling.

Still, the NFL can hope that 20% chance its not granted becomes a reality. If it does, the further they delay, the better the odds that he misses more than 2 games. I'm really hoping the courts bend the NFL over in this case, starting with the injunction and then hope that the contempt case is favorable for the Hardy decision. Judges don't like being shown up so I think it's fair to think the NFL is going to get its rear end handed to it.