NFLPA files lawsuit against NFL for collusion

by **rskin72** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:10 am

The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it will be shot down as the NFLPA agreed not to sue basically for anything past or present when they signed this current CBA. Think the only potential saving grace for them would be that they have a supposedly friendly judge in Doty to hear this.

Of course, I thought that we had a pretty strong case and would be upheld.

Wonder what would have happened if.....instead of "dumping" salaries as us and the boyz did, creating this vastlyunfair competitive advantage....we would have just gone out and signed several FA's to $$$ contracts in 2010. Would there have been a difference?

by **SkinsJock** » Thu May 24, 2012 12:13 pm

I'm not sure that we're going to get anything from all this

The Redskins and Cowboys are a part of the NFL and as such will be liable if this goes any further

I doubt that much comes of this but then again I thought we had a good chance in arbitration too

the one thing for sure is that the NFL looks really bad because of all this BS

by **riggofan** » Thu May 24, 2012 12:19 pm

rskin72 wrote:The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it will be shot down as the NFLPA agreed not to sue basically for anything past or present when they signed this current CBA. Think the only potential saving grace for them would be that they have a supposedly friendly judge in Doty to hear this.

I think you're right. Sounds like the NFL covered themselves pretty well. Its really just straight up GANGSTER the way they played everybody. If you look at the whole story you can start to see why the Redskins were totally unaware that the penalty was coming until just hours before free agency started. They made De Smith an offer he couldn't refuse, whacked the Skins, whacked the Boys, and buttoned up all the loopholes leading back to them. Its like the last fifteen minutes of The Godfather. Somebody should bring them up on RICO charges!

It depresses me to listen to the average fan on the radio or posting on ESPN or whatever today. I would say most of them don't support the NFLPA's lawsuit and generally think the players are just being greedy. Its a hard topic for people to understand.

by **Deadskins** » Thu May 24, 2012 12:39 pm

riggofan wrote:
rskin72 wrote:The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it will be shot down as the NFLPA agreed not to sue basically for anything past or present when they signed this current CBA. Think the only potential saving grace for them would be that they have a supposedly friendly judge in Doty to hear this.

I think you're right. Sounds like the NFL covered themselves pretty well. Its really just straight up GANGSTER the way they played everybody. If you look at the whole story you can start to see why the Redskins were totally unaware that the penalty was coming until just hours before free agency started. They made De Smith an offer he couldn't refuse, whacked the Skins, whacked the Boys, and buttoned up all the loopholes leading back to them. Its like the last fifteen minutes of The Godfather. Somebody should bring them up on RICO charges!

It depresses me to listen to the average fan on the radio or posting on ESPN or whatever today. I would say most of them don't support the NFLPA's lawsuit and generally think the players are just being greedy. Its a hard topic for people to understand.

I'm beginning to think they structured the language in the CBA exactly the way they did because they knew they were going to do this cap theft, and wanted to insulate themselves from this exact fallout. My question is: what kind of lawyer for the NFLPA allows that language about known and unknown into the contract? :roll:

by **Countertrey** » Thu May 24, 2012 1:23 pm

Deadskins wrote: My question is: what kind of lawyer for the NFLPA allows that language about known and unknown into the contract?

Answer:

There are TWO of 'em... apparently one is smarter than the other...

by **riggofan** » Thu May 24, 2012 3:07 pm

Countertrey wrote:
Deadskins wrote: My question is: what kind of lawyer for the NFLPA allows that language about known and unknown into the contract?

Answer:
There are TWO of 'em... apparently one is smarter than the other...

LOL.

by **riggofan** » Thu May 24, 2012 3:10 pm

There was a lawyer from the NFLPA on the Sports Junkies show this morning talking about this case. I gotta say he didn't sound like the sharpest lawyer ever. Its kind of a broad judgement to make based on a radio interview, but he had pretty much no answer for why the lawsuit should be allowed to continue in spite of the "known and unknown" clause.

That's kind of the most important fact of the case right now, isn't it? I'd think they would have some sort of answer for that, especially when speaking to the press.

by **Countertrey** » Thu May 24, 2012 7:13 pm

riggofan wrote:There was a lawyer from the NFLPA on the Sports Junkies show this morning talking about this case. I gotta say he didn't sound like the sharpest lawyer ever. Its kind of a broad judgement to make based on a radio interview, but he had pretty much no answer for why the lawsuit should be allowed to continue in spite of the "known and unknown" clause.

That's kind of the most important fact of the case right now, isn't it? I'd think they would have some sort of answer for that, especially when speaking to the press.

They are just throwing crap against a wall... seeing what will stick...

by **1niksder** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:59 am

NFLPA files new brief in collusion case

The NFLPA has released a statement announcing that, on Thursday, the players filed a brief in response to the NFL’s effort to defeat the collusion case by focusing not on the merits of the claim but the timeliness of the filing. Put as simply as possible, the NFL contends that the collusion claims were waived; the NFLPA understandably and predictably claims they weren’t.

The collusion claim was sparked by the cap penalties imposed by the NFL on the Redskins and Cowboys for violating the “spirit” of the salary cap in 2010.

“In its filing, the NFLPA informed the Court that in March 2012, once the NFL and Owners believed they were in the clear, they imposed punishments on two teams — the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys — that failed to fully honor the Owners’ illegal conspiracy to collude during the uncapped 2010 season,” the NFLPA says. “Public comments by Owners in March 2012 about those punishments exposed what had been, until then, a carefully concealed agreement to violate the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. But now, confronted with a damages claim for their admitted conspiracy, the Owners desperately seek to find some legal argument to shield them from redress for the willful violations of the anti-collusion provisions of the Reggie White antitrust settlement agreement.”

by **Deadskins** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:47 pm

1niksder wrote:NFLPA files new brief in collusion case

The NFLPA has released a statement announcing that, on Thursday, the players filed a brief in response to the NFL’s effort to defeat the collusion case by focusing not on the merits of the claim but the timeliness of the filing. Put as simply as possible, the NFL contends that the collusion claims were waived; the NFLPA understandably and predictably claims they weren’t.

The collusion claim was sparked by the cap penalties imposed by the NFL on the Redskins and Cowboys for violating the “spirit” of the salary cap in 2010.

“In its filing, the NFLPA informed the Court that in March 2012, once the NFL and Owners believed they were in the clear, they imposed punishments on two teams — the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys — that failed to fully honor the Owners’ illegal conspiracy to collude during the uncapped 2010 season,” the NFLPA says. “Public comments by Owners in March 2012 about those punishments exposed what had been, until then, a carefully concealed agreement to violate the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. But now, confronted with a damages claim for their admitted conspiracy, the Owners desperately seek to find some legal argument to shield them from redress for the willful violations of the anti-collusion provisions of the Reggie White antitrust settlement agreement.”

Yeah, where were you when they were fining us? Suckling at Goodell's teats, is where! :evil:

by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:52 pm

SOB.. I had a dream I guess where we won got awarded our.money back plus the 1.~ million the other teams got added to their cap...AND a secound round draft.pick next year.

Dangit.

by **1niksder** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:08 pm

NFL: Union, league at odds over 2010 cap penalties

by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:09 am

1niksder wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-union-league-odds-over-230023441--nfl.html

Fixed it for you.

by **1niksder** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:14 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-union-league-odds-over-230023441--nfl.html

Fixed it for you.

Thanks

by **SkinsJock** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:19 am

Thanks 1niksder - doesn't sound like the there's much of a chance of this being a factor at all

when they agreed to the CBA, the players agreed to Godahell being able to do just about anything he wants

I also think, from reading into this that the Redskins and Cowboys cap penalties have ZERO chance of changing

what a mess - I hope the league finds a way to give Mara and his cronies some payback on this as well :twisted: