NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[Mayor]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have to do a retract of my "certainty" that it won't make it past a motion to dismiss. The omnibus settlement apparently contained a clause indicating that the NFLPA gave up all claims "known and unknown" relating to claims of collusion. I am pretty certain that this is a broadly read clause and it is certainly what the NFL will hang its hat on.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply because the fact that the fines were levied AFTER the signing of the CBA, so the blanket statement on past collusion doesn't apply to what appears to be collusion after the CBA.

But anyway, collusion is a legal matter that goes beyond contract law. You can't sign away your right to expose illegal activities.

Well, unless you work for Major League Baseball.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mayor

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply because the fact that the fines were levied AFTER the signing of the CBA, so the blanket statement on past collusion doesn't apply to what appears to be collusion after the CBA.

.

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.

I can't find that phrase in the new CBA as it relates to collusion charges. Maybe it's in a later agreement?

(darnit can't post link for another 9 posts, sorry)

There's plenty of legaleze in the new CBA that the NFL can't be sued for much of anything, lol. (Section 2 pg. 7). But there may be an opening in (Section A. pg 8.) to sue the NFL for collusion that is *not* "prior to 2011".

I think the actions taken in 2012 by the Commissioner, EMC, and owners' meeting to punish the Skins and Cowboys; is collusion that the NFLPA can sue against. Even if the Skins and Cows won't.

[Mayor]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...it also states "known and unknown",and yes you can sign off on it.

No, This decision to penalize teams was arrived at after the CBA, so signing off on past collusion (even if enforceable), doesn't cover something the did since that time.