| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
UK Skins Fan
|||||||
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4437
Location: Somewhere, out there.
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
An agreement to drop all litigation for any offences "known and unknown"?!! Seriously, how does an organisation purporting to call itself a players union allow itself to sign up to this nonsense?!
I can't help feeling that the NFL is still bullet proofed against this action, but we'll see. I would LOVE to see John Mara appearing in court, wriggling and squirming like a maggot on a hook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
UK Skins Fan
|||||||
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4437
Location: Somewhere, out there.
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...
... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division... |
Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror". |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12768
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UK Skins Fan wrote: | | Countertrey wrote: | What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...
... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division... |
Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror". |
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are slimey, indeed... but can't hold a slime candle to the NFLPA. Not only are they supremely slimey, but they are incompetent at the same time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
emoses14
Hog
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1505
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | UK Skins Fan wrote: | | Countertrey wrote: | What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...
... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division... |
Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror". |
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are slimey, indeed... but can't hold a slime candle to the NFLPA. Not only are they supremely slimey, but they are incompetent at the same time... |
I don't know. Depending on how this plays out, it could bear that the NFLPA actually was playing chess to the NFL's checkers when they signed on for that penalty "butt intercourse." I don't know all the details, cause i've not read their filing, nor the CBA to find out precisely what degree of release they gave the NFL for causes of action arising prior to its execution. But if they didn't relese the universe (which is not really all that uncommon, actually) then this is chess type action on their part.
So long as they didn't agree not to bring suits like this, not sure how this makes them slimey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12768
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They are playing both ends... you may not find duplicitous behavior slimey... but for most of us... that is the very definition of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
rskin72
Hog
Joined: 11 Mar 2012
Posts: 283
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the NFLPA has jumped on the litigation bandwagon. While this may bring to light the collusion ...er.....gentleman's agreement between owners for the 2010 season.....where does it leave the Skins and Boyz concerning this penalty? Our teams stated that they were moving on after the Burbank ruling.....so, if the courts decide that the NFLPA can pursue this case (i.e. that the CBA does not preclude this suit), and the NFLPA wins, does this mean that Snyder and Jones could also revisit their appeal of the salary cap smack-down?
So.....did someone in one of the organizations "leak" some info to the NFLPA concerning this? I wonder.
Personally, I would just like to see Mara taken down several notches....he was so self-righteous when announcing that he thought the cap penalities were just, and we were lucky not to have lost draft picks as well....hope he ends up regretting the day he made that statement.
Finally....who will be the first member of Congress to demand a hearing over this issue?? Maybe a Va or Tx congressman or senator?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14716
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rskin72 wrote: | | So the NFLPA has jumped on the litigation bandwagon. While this may bring to light the collusion ...er.....gentleman's agreement between owners for the 2010 season.....where does it leave the Skins and Boyz concerning this penalty? Our teams stated that they were moving on after the Burbank ruling.....so, if the courts decide that the NFLPA can pursue this case (i.e. that the CBA does not preclude this suit), and the NFLPA wins, does this mean that Snyder and Jones could also revisit their appeal of the salary cap smack-down? |
They won't have to revisit. If a court rules in the NFLPA's favor, then the penalties would have to be rescinded as a consequence.
| rskin72 wrote: | | So.....did someone in one of the organizations "leak" some info to the NFLPA concerning this? I wonder. |
There was no need to leak anything, Mara did that himself. But it's not like the collusion wasn't obvious from the start.
| rskin72 wrote: | | Personally, I would just like to see Mara taken down several notches....he was so self-righteous when announcing that he thought the cap penalities were just, and we were lucky not to have lost draft picks as well....hope he ends up regretting the day he made that statement. |
I'm sure he already regrets it. Personally, I'm loving it. 
| rskin72 wrote: | | Finally....who will be the first member of Congress to demand a hearing over this issue?? Maybe a Va or Tx congressman or senator?? |
That's the $64,000 question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...
... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division... |
Bingo - thanks C'trey  |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The NFLPA conducted a conference call Wednesday afternoon to address questions regarding the collusion case that was filed earlier in the day against the NFL. The 45-minute discussion focused at times on the language of a “Stipulation of Dismissal” submitted by the lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA upon conclusion of the Reggie White litigation in August 2011.
The stipulation plainly states that the parties agreed to a dismissal of all claims, “known and unknown, whether pending or not,” including but not limited to “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.” NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, who at one pointed admitted that the stipulation if effective would be fatal to the new collusion claim, contends that the stipulation was superseded by a subsequent order entered by Judge David Doty.
Predictably, the NFL disagrees. “A stipulation of dismissal on behalf of the union and the White class was signed by Kessler and filed in the Court,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email. “The union is bound by that document.”
We’re now trying to get our hands (or at least our eyes) on the Doty order to which Kessler referred. Though the language of the order signed by Judge Doty won’t win the new collusion case, it could quickly kill it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
man oh man - this is going to get messy
there is a lot of bad things happening for the NFL executive committee to try and get a grip on and to attempt to spin this their way
this could be a really big bun fight if they're not careful |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
 |
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1niksder wrote: | | Quote: | The NFLPA conducted a conference call Wednesday afternoon to address questions regarding the collusion case that was filed earlier in the day against the NFL. The 45-minute discussion focused at times on the language of a “Stipulation of Dismissal” submitted by the lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA upon conclusion of the Reggie White litigation in August 2011.
The stipulation plainly states that the parties agreed to a dismissal of all claims, “known and unknown, whether pending or not,” including but not limited to “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.” NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, who at one pointed admitted that the stipulation if effective would be fatal to the new collusion claim, contends that the stipulation was superseded by a subsequent order entered by Judge David Doty.
Predictably, the NFL disagrees. “A stipulation of dismissal on behalf of the union and the White class was signed by Kessler and filed in the Court,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email. “The union is bound by that document.”
We’re now trying to get our hands (or at least our eyes) on the Doty order to which Kessler referred. Though the language of the order signed by Judge Doty won’t win the new collusion case, it could quickly kill it. |
|
g'day - is there any substance to reports that the NFLPA might have agreed to support the NFL with regards the salary cap punishment orchestrated by Godahell & Mara in order for the NFLPA to then be able to bring this suit because of the admittance by the NFL that the owners had an agreement together? |
|
| Back to top |
|
UK Skins Fan
|||||||
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4437
Location: Somewhere, out there.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | “There was no collusion,” Greg Aiello, the NFL’s senior vice president of communications, said in a written statement. “There was no agreement. These claims are totally unfounded.” |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-players-union-sues-the-league-alleging-collusion-on-salaries-in-2010/2012/05/23/gJQA9opclU_story.html
So, Mr Aiello, that presumably means that ALL teams were free to spend whatever they wanted to during the 2010 season? Or did every single team (except the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints and Raiders) spontaneously and independently decide that they would spend their money as if there WERE a salary cap in place? That's remarkable.
So, there was NO collusion. Therefore, no agreement to artificially restrict spending on salaries in 2010? Excellent. So we just need our $36m back please, and we can forget the whole thing. And you might want to consider giving the NFLPA a billion or two as well. Then they might be able to afford some decent legal brains of their own to prevent signing up to this sort of stupidity in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
UK Skins Fan
|||||||
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4437
Location: Somewhere, out there.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does anybody else get the feeling that this whole thing is going round and round in circles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
emoses14
Hog
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1505
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UK Skins Fan wrote: | | Quote: | | “There was no collusion,” Greg Aiello, the NFL’s senior vice president of communications, said in a written statement. “There was no agreement. These claims are totally unfounded.” |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-players-union-sues-the-league-alleging-collusion-on-salaries-in-2010/2012/05/23/gJQA9opclU_story.html
So, Mr Aiello, that presumably means that ALL teams were free to spend whatever they wanted to during the 2010 season? Or did every single team (except the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints and Raiders) spontaneously and independently decide that they would spend their money as if there WERE a salary cap in place? That's remarkable.
So, there was NO collusion. Therefore, no agreement to artificially restrict spending on salaries in 2010? Excellent. So we just need our $36m back please, and we can forget the whole thing. And you might want to consider giving the NFLPA a billion or two as well. Then they might be able to afford some decent legal brains of their own to prevent signing up to this sort of stupidity in the future. |
NOW THAT is a duplicitous slime playing both sides. That's clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth, having your cake and eating it, too. Its also a bold faced lie, which, you know, is slimey as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
riggofan
Hog
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 2942
Location: Montclair, Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | rskin72 wrote: | | So the NFLPA has jumped on the litigation bandwagon. While this may bring to light the collusion ...er.....gentleman's agreement between owners for the 2010 season.....where does it leave the Skins and Boyz concerning this penalty? Our teams stated that they were moving on after the Burbank ruling.....so, if the courts decide that the NFLPA can pursue this case (i.e. that the CBA does not preclude this suit), and the NFLPA wins, does this mean that Snyder and Jones could also revisit their appeal of the salary cap smack-down? |
They won't have to revisit. If a court rules in the NFLPA's favor, then the penalties would have to be rescinded as a consequence. |
I still don't think is a lock like you're saying. Why does a ruling for collusion mean the penalties would HAVE to be rescinded? The whole penalty thing was completely arbitrary to begin with.
You might need to look into this more. I read multiple articles from reputable sources yesterday basically saying that this case probably won't help the Redskins/Cowboys get the cap space back. The NFLPA is suing for damages, not to get the cap penalty removed.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/39388/fallout-from-skinscowboys-cap-case-continues
| Quote: |
Q: Will this help the Redskins and Cowboys get their money back?
A: I can't imagine how. The teams agreed to abide by Burbank's ruling Tuesday, and if the union were to succeed here, the players would be awarded damages. It's possible, if it's determined that there was collusion and the Redskins and Cowboys did not engage in it, that those two teams could be exempted somehow from having to pay the damages. But I don't see how they get their cap money back as a result of this.
|
http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/05/redskins-may-not-be-helped-by-nflpa-suit.html
| Quote: | | The suit claims that the collusion cost the players “up to $1 billion, if not substantially more” and is looking for compensatory damages of $3 billion or more. It does not specifically ask for the salary cap dollars to be restored to the Cowboys and Redskins. |
Even if the NFLPA is successful - which is a longshot - it seems that the Boys/Skins would still have to file their own lawsuit to address the cap penalty.
IMHO, the best thing about the NFLPA lawsuit is just how STUPID it has shown Goodell and Mara to be here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
| Page 2 of 4 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
