NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[SBXVII]

To a fan who politely pointed out that the NFLPA signed off on all their rights "known and unknown" in the new CBA another fan makes this arguement and it's pretty reasonable:

The NFLPA agreed not to sue based on any claims from the Brady or White lawsuits. The 2010 collusion was not part of those suits, so it's fair game.

to which anothre fan wrote this:

Not according to the language on the settlement signed by both the NFL and Union and filed with the Court. The quote from that below specifically calls out any possible case relating to collusion in the 2010 season.

“The parties stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (‘SSA’) including but not limited to the claims asserting breach of the SSA related to (i) television contracts and broadcast revenues; and (ii) asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year, excepting only the pending claim filed March 11, 2011 relating to an alleged rookie shortfall on the part of the Philadelphia Eagles.”

The NFLPA seem to be trying to argue that the final ruling of the court which dismissed the Brady/White lawsuits did not take this stipulation into account and thus it's not valid. I'm not a lawyer but that seems a weak argument to me but we will see.

I can't but help thinking this little clause the NFL had put into the CBA screams of something very similar to when people or organizations make you sign a waver agreeing not to file a suit against them if you get hurt on their property or equipement. .... and I've heard those agreements are about as worthless as the paper their written on.

I can see the little clause with the section refering to known collusion and any cases already filed being dismissed. But I have a hard time (even though it's in a contract and signed) believing a judge would not allow the NFLPA to ever bring another collusion case against the NFL because they signed an agreement that stated any and all unknown collusion cases as well. Why? cause that would definitly give the NFL carte blanche to collude in the future with out penalty.

If this case gets dismissed I sure hope the Feds get involved and start asking the NFL questions and possibly looking into taking their exemption away forcing them to follow normal rules instead of making their own up as they go.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

To a fan who politely pointed out that the NFLPA signed off on all their rights "known and unknown" in the new CBA another fan makes this arguement and it's pretty reasonable:


to which anothre fan wrote this:


I can't but help thinking this little clause the NFL had put into the CBA screams of something very similar to when people or organizations make you sign a waver agreeing not to file a suit against them if you get hurt on their property or equipement. .... and I've heard those agreements are about as worthless as the paper their written on.

I can see the little clause with the section refering to known collusion and any cases already filed being dismissed. But I have a hard time (even though it's in a contract and signed) believing a judge would not allow the NFLPA to ever bring another collusion case against the NFL because they signed an agreement that stated any and all unknown collusion cases as well. Why? cause that would definitly give the NFL carte blanche to collude in the future with out penalty.

If this case gets dismissed I sure hope the Feds get involved and start asking the NFL questions and possibly looking into taking their exemption away forcing them to follow normal rules instead of making their own up as they go.

When this gets dismissed it's not the NFL it's the NFLPA that should look into finding someone who knows about contract negotiations and collectve bargining....Smith clearly doesn't.