Source of 'Rift' ***Update Post #55***

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,995
Reaction score
28,207
HERE is a link to the letter from this law firm to the players acknowledging that:

a) "It is our hope and intention to represent a group of seventy (70) or more current or potential NFL players.

In other words that's where the number 70 came from.

b) One of the members of their firm has done legal work for the NFL.

THE MEDIATION SO YOU HAVE A VOICE. READ BELOW AND SEE ATTACHED.
Please find attached correspondence to you and a proposed player engagement letter. We have not also attached a copy of our standard terms and conditions.

As we discussed, one of our partners in our Los Angeles office has previously done work for the National Football League or its its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Accordingly, pursuant to our internal review of this issue and the Rules of Professional Conduct, we must obtain a waiver from the NFL in order to represent players in the referenced litigation. Requesting the waiver will alert the NFL to the players’ concerns and our potential involvement relating thereto which presents tactical opportunities - as it would allow the players to quickly and openly enter the negotiation process - but also concerns as it may create the false impression that the players are somehow fragmented at this time. Accordingly, it is critical that the players consider the issues presented and ensure you that they are comfortable with our seeking a waiver at this time. It is important, additionally, that they appreciate that the NFL may not agree to a waiver. In that case they will need to seek other counsel, though we can assist with that process on an expedited basis. see below for update

It is our hope and intention to represent a group of seventy (70) or more current or potential NFL players.These players have expressed an interest in obtaining independent representation in the hope that by adding their voice to the current negotiations and litigation they may: (1) work to secure a global resolution promptly that addresses the needs of all players; and (2) support and add to the legal efforts of the players now active in the litigation. The focus of our representation will therefore be to accelerate efforts aimed at securing a negotiated resolution of the dispute and, if necessary, intervene in the litigation proceedings and pursue resolution through direct participation in the litigation.

From a legal standpoint, we anticipate taking the following steps to meet the players’ objectives:
1. Advise counsel for players now active in the litigation of the separate interests of our clients and the need to address those interests as a part of securing a prompt resolution of the dispute;

2. Conduct an initial meeting with counsel for players now active in the litigation on an expedited basis to detail our clients’ interests and discuss how those interests can be incorporated into the current negotiations for resolution; and

3. Discuss with counsel for players now active in the litigation in our initial meeting whether the inclusion of our clients as named plaintiffs will be a positive and effective addition to the litigation team and materially advance prospects for a prompt resolution.

It is our intent to work in a cooperative fashion with the current player representatives to add to the force of the players’ claims in the case based on our belief that our prospective clients’ are more “typical” of the average NFL player from an interest, financial and damages perspective. In doing so, however, it is also our belief that a mutually-agreeable resolution of the current dispute is more likely if such “typical” players are more actively represented in the litigation and negotiation proceedings on an ongoing basis.

*****Update from above: per the last email I sent you the Lawyers have spoken to the NFL with regards to the issue they had with a potential conflict and their new partner in LA office. He spoke to the NFL to get their permission to move forward on you and your fellow players behalf.

The response was welcome as they said the present list of players that are in Mediation right now are not negotiating in good faith and they welcome a fresh large list of players to help bridge the gap.

This information is important as they believe the players/PA reps and counsel are acting on the idea that the judge will rule in their favor and this is a bad idea even if it does that would mean this will drag on for months or worse.

I ask you to please get the 70 players to sign onto this as fast as possible the next meeting between the parties is Tuesday therefore we have the weekend and Monday to be added to the table, you would have a voice for your own futures.
Yes this does deserve its own thread because the title of the otehr thread is a lie. This little factoid does not deserve to be buried in the other thread.

i only quoted the letter from the firm to the players. If you want the players mouthpiece's take then click on the link.
 
:laugh2: Where are all the pro-owner guys guys who were bragging in the other thread??


I knew there was something fishy going on because it hadn't leaked out from the media which 70 players and which law firm were involved.
 
Done work for means former employee?

A former employee would not create a conflict of interest, a former legal representative could and they addressed this.

There is a pretty significant difference in those 2.
 
The Grim Reaper;3915110 said:
Done work for means former employee?

A former employee would not create a conflict of interest, a former legal representative could and they addressed this.

There is a pretty significant difference in those 2.

Good point. It wont let me modify the post though.
 
I love this bit:

The response was welcome as they said the present list of players that are in Mediation right now are not negotiating in good faith and they welcome a fresh large list of players to help bridge the gap.
Sounds legit.
 
This to me is the most telling from the letter:

I ask you to please get the 70 players to sign onto this as fast as possible the next meeting between the parties is Tuesday therefore we have the weekend and Monday to be added to the table, you would have a voice for your own futures.
 
FuzzyLumpkins;3915112 said:
Good point. It wont let me modify the post though.
I can Brah. Tell me what it should say. I'll take care of it so you don't get grief from anyone.
 
theogt;3915113 said:
I love this bit:

Sounds legit.
When I said that you bit my head off. Now it sounds legit? Or do you not realize that was about the NFLPA*?
 
Hostile;3915115 said:
I can Brah. Tell me what it should say. I'll take care of it so you don't get grief from anyone.

Cool thanks.

Please change:

"is a former employee of the NFL" to "has done legal work for the NFL"

And spell "acknowledging" correctly. Much appreciated.
 
Hostile;3915116 said:
When I said that you bit my head off. Now it sounds legit? Or do you not realize that was about the NFLPA*?
Sarcasm.

As in, that line basically solidifies it's not a legit law firm. It's some small fry plantiffs firm out trying to make a buck.

Has the name of the firm been disclosed?
 
FuzzyLumpkins;3915118 said:
Cool thanks.

Please change:

"is a former employee of the NFL" to "has done legal work for the NFL"

And spell "acknowledging" correctly. Much appreciated.
Done. I fixed one other spell error for you while I was at it.
 
This whole thing stinks but more from ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6396256

"We've had discussions about representing some additional players who want to have a voice in the matter," said Bryan Clobes of Cafferty Faucher.

I guess that means that Cafferty Faucher is this law firm? Its kind of ambiguous.

For what its worth here is a profile of the firm:

http://www.martindale.com/Cafferty-Faucher-LLP/law-firm-585680.htm

The specialize "in the area of federal and state securities, commodities, employee benefits and antitrust litigation."

Moreso from Clobes:

But Clobes said the number is "nowhere near 70" and that it does not indicate any dissatisfaction with the way things are progressing.

"The players have extremely capable counsel," Clobes said. "If we were to get involved, it would be so we could add and lend our expertise, not because we thought the current lawyers were not doing a credible job. They're doing an incredible job."

Whatever that means.

Vrabel also chimes in with:

Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, one of the plaintiffs in the Brady case, told ESPN's Ed Werder in Minneapolis during a break in Wednesday's mediation session -- ordered two weeks ago by a federal judge -- that he was unaware of the report but said everybody on the players side is unhappy with how the original mediation attempt ended in Washington.

Vrabel said that abandoning the cause in this way would be the wrong way to demonstrate dissatisfaction.

"We all have a seat at the table already. If they're unhappy, then we should get together and elect a new executive board," he said.
 
Yup, small/random plaintiff's firm just trying to make a buck, sending out e-mails in hopes they get someone to bite. Nothing wrong with that, it's just this ain't a story worth reporting.
 
My take so far:

There are some some players that are dissatisfied with their representation. The number is "nowhere near 70."

I am not sure how the NFLPA got that letter but I imagine it was from one of these said players. It seems the letter was not given to the NFLPA until after the issue of conflict of interest arose.

We can speculate all day long about who approached who and whether or not the conflict is real. Its pretty pointless at this point.

FWIW, i do not think this law firm is out to undermine the antitrust case. After all that is what they specialize. now i do have my doubts as to their motivation. i give credence to theo's notion that "basically solidifies it's not a legit law firm. It's some small fry plantiffs firm out trying to make a buck."

It makes sense that some firms would want a piece of this very lucrative litigation.
 
Im sure there are several players who would have taken whatever deal the NFL offered so they dont miss a few checks. Doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things
 
So, all agendas have to evolve about the direction taken by the newly elected Union President, who is forging a legal direction inclusive of his own resume and ego as well. Well, the lawyers have a death hold upon process at present. I here don't comment upon the validity of such a legal enforced process.

But as to the 'splinter group,' that is always an alternative for any sized group to define what is in their OWN interest and to attack issues in such a manner as to try and secure their own wishes on issues. That is right and due process as well.

I dare say, that if economic woes were addressed to the protection of owner's fears, that issues of a player's concern would have easily been settled to their advantage already.

That a group of players want to secure their own protections, disjointed from the current court delaying actions taken in the now, that is freedom in determination of direction as well. And here, I am not starting to talk about effects it has concerning future negotiations or present litigation.

In the military, we were continually schooled to handle problems at the simplest levels. Grandstanding cost lives, and here, some of this projected group may have the fears and frustrations of a real group as well.

This only brings up an issue of consolidation of a site once occupied, and implementing plans to address the effects being presented now...but NOT in a final picture of blame, appropriateness, or even a prospect of lame participation for a merely economic target of opportunity.

We'll see if there is any variance from the forged direction at all. To me, there is very little doubt as to direction and ramifications involved in the now....with or without a splinter group's addition. A former player's group or two has already been added to the mix without change of directions in the river flowing at present.

I seriously doubt that much damage control is needed to begin with.
 
How ironic that "some" of the players are within their legal rights to act in their best interest yet others are not when it does not suit your agenda.

At least several of you have now shown your true colors on the matter.

-Reality
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,684
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top