U.S. Court of Appeals overturns Judge Doty on 2012 collusion case

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I personally separate the 2 things.

1.) The cap reallocation was within bounds and totally justifiable for the competition committee to do, if they were really concerned with competitive balance.

2.) The motive behind the cap reallocation started with collusion. I don't know how I feel about that, exactly. But what I do know is the NFL covered all their bases before they revealed their hand, and anything short of a nuclear option just doesn't seem like it's going to make much of a difference.

I enjoy the NFL the way it is now and I think for the most part the owners and NFLPA do too. An anti-trust lawsuit could change quite a bit, and not necessarily for the better of the league or its fans.

One thing that is readily apparent is you are ignorant to sports law. Competitive balance has not flown in federal court as an excuse for limiting contracts or the market in any way outside of a CBA in two centuries.

As for the second, the reallocation was enforcement of collusion. It is collusion in and of itself.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We won't.

The NFLPA signed off on the cap reallocation, and once Dal/Wsh appealed, all the other owners backed the competition committee's decision. The only ones who want Dal/Wsh to get cap space back is Dal/Wsh, so it's just not going to happen.

The appellate court threw out Doty's dismissal and resent the case back to the lower court. Doty was retiring i don't know if he has yet.

The appeals court does not accept the blanket dismissal for collusion again saying that the NFLPA can seek to prove that they were misrepresented to in making said agreement. I don't think it's hard at all to show that they owners were lying to the players.

If the players end up winning who knows what the decision of the court will be in terms of restitution or the like or what Dallas and especially Washington might do.

You really like acting with certainty things that you have no way of knowing.

 

[Nightman]

This is an entire conversation that has gone over a couple of threads some of which was deleted in the NCAA thread. That, work, and the fact that you both have a penchant for oversimplificed groupthink blurs identities a bit.

I have no idea why you are here and don't work for the NFLPA. You seem to know everything about everything to a 100% certainty.

I know you hate metaphors and analogies, but what would happen if my boss made me steal boxes if our box supplier went out of business?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no idea why you are here and don't work for the NFLPA. You seem to know everything about everything to a 100% certainty.

I know you hate metaphors and analogies, but what would happen if my boss made me steal boxes if our box supplier went out of business?

You cannot even come up with original commentary. The only thing I am of a certainty is that the courts reject the competitive balance argumetn over and again. They have and it is clear to see. We can start early with the NFL as it is apparent in Brown vs NFL where the SCOTUS takes them to task.

20 years later and you can tell the judges ruling are annoyed by the same arguments from the NFL as they once again reject them.

i have no notion as to the outcome. I know what argument I find more compelling but I am anything but certain.

Now I did say that about you two but it is easy to see why. Nice "I know you are but what am I" routine though.

 

[Nightman]

You cannot even come up with original commentary. The only thing I am of a certainty is that the courts reject the competitive balance argumetn over and again. They have and it is clear to see. We can start early with the NFL as it is apparent in Brown vs NFL where the SCOTUS takes them to task.

20 years later and you can tell the judges ruling are annoyed by the same arguments from the NFL as they once again reject them.

i have no notion as to the outcome. I know what argument I find more compelling but I am anything but certain.

Now I did say that about you two but it is easy to see why. Nice "I know you are but what am I" routine though.

I just gave my opinion on the matter as a regular fan. You are the one that takes everything as a personal affront to your vast amount of knowledge of contract law.

You say it's duress and I see it as a negotiation. The NFL said if the NFLPA would sign off on the penalties, they could borrow against the future and manipulate the cap to set it at 120m. If they didn't and chose to fight it then it would be around 113-115m. I feel that knowing there wouldn't be multi-billion dollar collusion lawsuit was part of the offer the League made. The NFLPA accepted the penalties and the disbursement of the confiscated cap dollars to balance the scales even further. They had already signed away the right to sue over collusion in the CBA and this should have just solidified it.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so what. But I don't need someone to tell me I'm 100% wrong before it's even been decided.

 

[Nova]

One thing that is readily apparent is you are ignorant to sports law. Competitive balance has not flown in federal court as an excuse for limiting contracts or the market in any way outside of a CBA in two centuries.

As for the second, the reallocation was enforcement of collusion. It is collusion in and of itself.

Yeah I don't think competitive balance would hold up in federal court. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying the competition committee was within bounds of reallocating cap space and got all their. Underhanded method and based on collusion? Yeah sure. But Dallas and Washington appealed and Stephen Burbank basically said that everything was fine but if the cowboys and Commanders were dissatisfied they could take it to federal court... Which they were not going to do.

The reallocation of cap dollars was very likely collusion. But it just may not matter because the NFLPA signed away their right to bring this matter up in the new CBA.

 

[Nova]

The appellate court threw out Doty's dismissal and resent the case back to the lower court. Doty was retiring i don't know if he has yet.

The appeals court does not accept the blanket dismissal for collusion again saying that the NFLPA can seek to prove that they were misrepresented to in making said agreement. I don't think it's hard at all to show that they owners were lying to the players.

If the players end up winning who knows what the decision of the court will be in terms of restitution or the like or what Dallas and especially Washington might do.

You really like acting with certainty things that you have no way of knowing.

The appeals court overturned the case, again, because they're giving the NFLPA to prove that their dismissal was fraudulently procured-- not signing off on the cap reallocation, but rather their settlement of legal matters prior to 2011 in the new CBA with specific note on possible collusion in 2010.

They put that specificity about the 2010 year, because in 2011 the NFLPA took their suspicions of collusion in the 2010 year to Burbank prior to basically agreeing to drop it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The appeals court overturned the case, again, because they're giving the NFLPA to prove that their dismissal was fraudulently procured-- not signing off on the cap reallocation, but rather their settlement of legal matters prior to 2011 in the new CBA with specific note on possible collusion in 2010.

They put that specificity about the 2010 year, because in 2011 the NFLPA took their suspicions of collusion in the 2010 year to Burbank prior to basically agreeing to drop it.

Thus me saying repeatedly the 2010 agreement. The waiver that the NFL cops to was part of the entire CBA agreement. As for the rest, there was no binding arbitration so your timeline of events is meaningless.

What you fail to consider is how the 2011 revelations relate to the 2010 agreement. That was the entire point of the lawsuit they filed in the first place.

 

[Nova]

Thus me saying repeatedly the 2010 agreement. The waiver that the NFL cops to was part of the entire CBA agreement. As for the rest, there was no binding arbitration so your timeline of events is meaningless.

The waiver that the NFL cops to, yes is in the CBA. In which the NFLPA agreed to dismiss with prejudice "all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA) including but not limited to claims asserting… collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.”

Not sure what you're getting at as far as 'no binding arbitration', because the US court of appeals found that the dismissal was valid.

Which is exactly why the US Court of Appeals overturned the first ruling and is now allowing the NFLPA to seek relief from Rule 60(b)-- that their agreement of dismissal was fraudulently procured.

The timeline of events is not meaningless at all. It helps illustrate the history of the NFLPA's collusion suspiscions (again because they filed a complaint with Special Master Stephen Burbank in January of 2011, before settling 8 months later) and paints their case for relief from 60(b) as 'disingenuous'... because how can they say their settlement was fraudulently procured when it was clear they should have known better? Not to mention, seeking relief from Rule 60(b) wasn't their first move to try and reopen the collusion case, which (and this is just my opinion) looks desperate because they did not get the ruling they wanted when they petitioned for Rule 23(e).

It just adds to the difficulty of actually winning, because as the US Court of Appeals put it in their ruling:

“Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases”.

What you fail to consider is how the 2011 revelations relate to the 2010 agreement. That was the entire point of the lawsuit they filed in the first place.

Maybe I do. Because it seems like the 2011 revelations (Mara's comments, Florio's article) only provided a motive and a tangible reason for the NFLPA to finish what they started in 2010... but that's only IF they can get it back into court.

I just do not think those hearsay revelations (angry comments/secret source) are any more potent for a collusion case than what the NFLPA already knew and already suspected when they settled in the first place.

But we will see.

 

[Hoofbite]

Whoever keeps citing competitive advantage as cause for the penalty is ignoring that the court has rejected that as a basis for manipulating contracts and their accounting (re:financial transactions) since the very beginning of Brown v NFL.

We can start early with the NFL as it is apparent in Brown vs NFL where the SCOTUS takes them to task.

Will you elaborate a little on what SCOTUS did in taking them to task?

I know the case was about compensation but what are you referring to in regards to the outcome?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The waiver that the NFL cops to, yes is in the CBA. In which the NFLPA agreed to dismiss with prejudice "all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA) including but not limited to claims asserting… collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.”

Not sure what you're getting at as far as 'no binding arbitration', because the US court of appeals found that the dismissal was valid.

Which is exactly why the US Court of Appeals overturned the first ruling and is now allowing the NFLPA to seek relief from Rule 60(b)-- that their agreement of dismissal was fraudulently procured.

The timeline of events is not meaningless at all. It helps illustrate the history of the NFLPA's collusion suspiscions (again because they filed a complaint with Special Master Stephen Burbank in January of 2011, before settling 8 months later) and paints their case for relief from 60(b) as 'disingenuous'... because how can they say their settlement was fraudulently procured when it was clear they should have known better? Not to mention, seeking relief from Rule 60(b) wasn't their first move to try and reopen the collusion case, which (and this is just my opinion) looks desperate because they did not get the ruling they wanted when they petitioned for Rule 23(e).

It just adds to the difficulty of actually winning, because as the US Court of Appeals put it in their ruling:

“Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases”.



Maybe I do. Because it seems like the 2011 revelations (Mara's comments, Florio's article) only provided a motive and a tangible reason for the NFLPA to finish what they started in 2010... but that's only IF they can get it back into court.

I just do not think those hearsay revelations (angry comments/secret source) are any more potent for a collusion case than what the NFLPA already knew and already suspected when they settled in the first place.

But we will see.

Maybe you don't. The dismissal was reversed and the case has gone back to the district court. It is what it is.

There is a difference between agreeing with an argument and granting the entire motion. You are alright at inventory it seems but still have a penchant for missing the forest for a tree.

And again the NFLPA can now argue whether or not they were deceived in making said agreement I haven't read their case and neither have you and the closest thing to an argument you actually make in all of that is that it 'appears desperate' which is again typical.

And quite frankly how do you think that a stark admission of collusion 'isn't more potent.' It's evidence that a)the league was acting in bad faith and b)that they were lying to the NFLPA. How about for once you do less of the emotional response and more of a rational argument?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Will you elaborate a little on what SCOTUS did in taking them to task?

I know the case was about compensation but what are you referring to in regards to the outcome?

You have to read the cases but when the SCOTUS takes count after count submitted by the NFL packages it into a single section and dismisses them all stating that the argument was rejected last time, that should tell you something.

The district court judge sounded irritated in the injunction she issued in 2010 by the competitive balance argument. The NFL really likes to submit the same briefs that get rejected every time. The court typically has too much dignity to resort to zingers though.

 

[Hoofbite]

You have to read the cases but when the SCOTUS takes count after count submitted by the NFL packages it into a single section and dismisses them all stating that the argument was rejected last time, that should tell you something.

The district court judge sounded irritated in the injunction she issued in 2010 by the competitive balance argument. The NFL really likes to submit the same briefs that get rejected every time. The court typically has too much dignity to resort to zingers though.

I was referring to just Brown. You've mentioned it a bit and I was just wondering what it was about that particular case that you seem to be alluding to.

 

[Nova]

Maybe you don't. The dismissal was reversed and the case has gone back to the district court. It is what it is.

There is a difference between agreeing with an argument and granting the entire motion. You are alright at inventory it seems but still have a penchant for missing the forest for a tree.


And again the NFLPA can now argue whether or not they were deceived in making said agreement I haven't read their case and neither have you and the closest thing to an argument you actually make in all of that is that it 'appears desperate' which is again typical.

The NFLPA can now argue whether or not they were deceived in making the agreement... I acknowledged that. But that's not all that they have to prove.

They have to also prove (among other things) that without the deception, the NFLPA would not have signed the agreement.

Again, this, in my opinion, is going to be the most difficult thing to prove because they dismissed all of the lawsuits so absolutely, despite having prior suspicions. They were willing to let the lawsuits go in order to move forward and settle on the CBA for their benefit.

And quite frankly how do you think that a stark admission of collusion 'isn't more potent.' It's evidence that a)the league was acting in bad faith and b)that they were lying to the NFLPA.

The revelations are not without importance.

That's True. It's evidence that the NFL acted in bad faith/lied to the NFLPA/ likely withheld the whole truth. But again the NFLPA had their suspicions and it's easily apparent that the NFLPA and NFL do not enjoy a fiduciary relationship.

The NFLPA should have been leery of such a dismissal clause and therefore new evidence isn't all that much more important than what they knew or should have known already.

This is further illustrated by the fact that we're talking about Rule 60(b)(3) and not Rule 60(b)(2). The NFLPA petitioned on (b)(3) by trying to prove that the agreement was fraudulently obtained. Not (b)(2).

(b)(2)-- "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(b)".

The NFLPA is not saying "Had we known of this new evidence, we would not have agreed" (at least not yet). They went straight for (b)(3).

The revelations just justified their suspicions to move to reopen their previous claims, because they felt they could prove there was evidence available in August of '11 to prove collusion and that the NFL misrepresented said evidence during their settlement. Not that the new evidence was their smoking gun.

How about for once you do less of the emotional response and more of a rational argument?

Uhh... what?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was referring to just Brown. You've mentioned it a bit and I was just wondering what it was about that particular case that you seem to be alluding to.

Brown was one of the first cases considering the labor dispute so i was saying since Brown. Basically since that time the subsequent cases have seen the sections summarizing the repeat counts of competitive balance the NFL argues and dismisses them cite Brown.

It happens in pretty much every judgment.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NFLPA can now argue whether or not they were deceived in making the agreement... I acknowledged that. But that's not all that they have to prove.

They have to also prove (among other things) that without the deception, the NFLPA would not have signed the agreement.

Again, this, in my opinion, is going to be the most difficult thing to prove because they dismissed all of the lawsuits so absolutely, despite having prior suspicions. They were willing to let the lawsuits go in order to move forward and settle on the CBA for their benefit.



The revelations are not without importance.

That's True. It's evidence that the NFL acted in bad faith/lied to the NFLPA/ likely withheld the whole truth. But again the NFLPA had their suspicions and it's easily apparent that the NFLPA and NFL do not enjoy a fiduciary relationship.

The NFLPA should have been leery of such a dismissal clause and therefore new evidence isn't all that much more important than what they knew or should have known already.

This is further illustrated by the fact that we're talking about Rule 60(b)(3) and not Rule 60(b)(2). The NFLPA petitioned on (b)(3) by trying to prove that the agreement was fraudulently obtained. Not (b)(2).

(b)(2)-- "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(b)".

The NFLPA is not saying "Had we known of this new evidence, we would not have agreed" (at least not yet). They went straight for (b)(3).

The revelations just justified their suspicions to move to reopen their previous claims, because they felt they could prove there was evidence available in August of '11 to prove collusion and that the NFL misrepresented said evidence during their settlement. Not that the new evidence was their smoking gun.



Uhh... what?

Uhh.. an argument that is not based on emotional qualifications and gross generalizations like 'more potent' or 'slam dunk.' You did better this time but that is why I call people out on that time of tripe because i want better.

You certainly like speaking for what the NFLPA knew or thought they knew when we both know you are talking out of your ***. Comments about 'should' without legal basis are also without merit.

It basically goes like this. If the NFL told them that they were indeed honoring the no cap situations then it is hardly a stretch that the NFLPA would have not signed that agreement had they found out that they were being lied to. You keep trying to separate the two issues but they go hand in hand.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just gave my opinion on the matter as a regular fan. You are the one that takes everything as a personal affront to your vast amount of knowledge of contract law.

You say it's duress and I see it as a negotiation. The NFL said if the NFLPA would sign off on the penalties, they could borrow against the future and manipulate the cap to set it at 120m. If they didn't and chose to fight it then it would be around 113-115m. I feel that knowing there wouldn't be multi-billion dollar collusion lawsuit was part of the offer the League made. The NFLPA accepted the penalties and the disbursement of the confiscated cap dollars to balance the scales even further. They had already signed away the right to sue over collusion in the CBA and this should have just solidified it.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so what. But I don't need someone to tell me I'm 100% wrong before it's even been decided.

I never claimed a vast amount of knowledge. I am not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be one. Quite the contrary. If i gave you that impression that is on you and not me.

Second I never said you were certainly wrong. Judge Doty did after all throw the case out before. I pointed it out to you how before and you just repeating it is not going to make it so. What I do do is point out why what you say is illogical, not germane or the like. Our conversation has no bearing on the outcome in court.

You also do not understand the notion of mutual exclusivity. Just because it was a negotiation does not preclude it from also being duress. I fail to see how a take it or leave it offer two days before FA is set to begin is not duress.

 

[Hoofbite]

Brown was one of the first cases considering the labor dispute so i was saying since Brown. Basically since that time the subsequent cases have seen the sections summarizing the repeat counts of competitive balance the NFL argues and dismisses them cite Brown.

It happens in pretty much every judgment.

What was the outcome of Brown?

 

[Nova]

Uhh.. an argument that is not based on emotional qualifications and gross generalizations like 'more potent' or 'slam dunk.' You did better this time but that is why I call people out on that time of tripe because i want better.

Wait... how are those are emotional qualifications? I assumed you were familiar with the case, and didn't think I'd have to delve into every aspect of it.

You certainly like speaking for what the NFLPA knew or thought they knew when we both know you are talking out of your ***. Comments about 'should' without legal basis are also without merit.

I'm not speaking for the NFLPA so much as I'm drawing a logical conclusion.

-The NFLPA suspected the league of collusion enough to bring it to Burbank
-Their complaint was pending during the CBA talks.
-They don't have a strong, trusting relationship with the NFL.
-Yet they sign off on their right to pursue the lawsuit of collusion and legal matters prior to 2011 permanently.

Whether they knew or not, they thought they knew about the collusion. It's evident in their actions. But still they still trusted the NFL (with whom they have history of a hostile relationship) rather than pursuing discovery enough to relinquish their right to sue? Fishy.

I'm not saying that argument is a slam dunk, but that aspect is going to make it very difficult to satisfy the stipulations of proving fraud, which has to be proven without a doubt.

It basically goes like this. If the NFL told them that they were indeed honoring the no cap situations then it is hardly a stretch that the NFLPA would have not signed that agreement had they found out that they were being lied to.

I don't really disagree. But proving that is much more difficult than the court inferring it. Proving fraud is difficult.

The reason the league moved to seek relief from rule 23 is that is was a much more black & white effort. That's why rule 60 was their back-up plan. They knew proving fraud would be a tougher battle. That's not just me speaking on behalf of the NFLPA; that's a logical, factual conclusion.

And even if they do gain relief by proving fraud, that's still only half the battle. I can get into that to, but this post is long enough already.

You keep trying to separate the two issues but they go hand in hand.

What issue am I trying to separate...?

 

[Nova]

@FuzzyLumpkins

After the last comment...

You keep trying to separate the two issues but they go hand in hand.

I began back-tracking and reading over the last page or so... do you know what's going on with this case?

A lot of times it seems like you do, but it also seems like you may be confused.