NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.

Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”

I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.

If an agreement is illegal (as would be the case with collusion) wouldn't any agreement meant to prevent the NFLPA from suing be irrelevant?

For example in this case:

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded to the players' claims with a comment: "The filing of these claims is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement and separately by an agreement signed by the players' attorneys last August.

IE would the clause in the CBA preventing the NFLPA from filing suit be irrelevant in the case of the NFL Owners breaking the law as it's my limited understanding that the law is above any such clause

[JoeRedskin]

@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoption a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.

[Giantone]

Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?

Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.

I'll defer to JoeRedskin on this one. His input is clearly more valuable than any guesses I could offer here.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoptio
n a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.

Basically I went to the NFL.com's site and found it finally there. I can't post the link right now it can later.