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.

[mlmpetert]

@ Smoot - you said you heard about this as a possibility a couple days ago. Do you know if NFLPA only planned to sue IF the lawsuit was dismissed?

Perhaps they intended to do so all along but were waiting for any documents that may have been released if the arbitration claim had gone foward? The NFLPA is basing their suit in part on the arbitration claim the Redskins/Cowboys had; however, i find it odd that the NFLPA waited until the day after that was dismissed.

@ Joe - It sounds like the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints are essentially witness for the plaintiff. If the NFLPA is suing the owners (is that who they are suing) is there any reason to think any of those teams will be forced to testify essentially against themselves. Is this civil court? Don’t you have to testify in civil court if youre a witness, even if youre the defendant? Any chance any of these 4 teams would want to join as plaintiffs? Is that even possible?

So if this is the “nuclear option” it makes you think the Redskins/Cowboys knew this would happen based off of their arguments in arbitration. It kind of sounds like we did go nuclear, right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

@ Joe - It sounds like the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints are essentially witness for the plaintiff. If the NFLPA is suing the owners (is that who they are suing) is there any reason to think any of those teams will be forced to testify essentially against themselves. Is this civil court? Don’t you have to testify in civil court if youre a witness, even if youre the defendant? Any chance any of these 4 teams would want to join as plaintiffs? Is that even possible?

- It is a civil action - more correctly, it is the continuation of an already settled civil action. The NFLPA has requested that the Federal District Court reopen the 1993 Settlement Agreement between the NFLPA that resolved the lawsuit which, eventually, initiated the unrestricted free agent era. All CBA's since then have been approved by the Federal Court as amendments to the original 1993 Settlement agreement.

- If you're called as a witness, yes, you must testify. Of course, if your memory goes bad on the stand ... well, that's just the way it goes ...
Q: Mr. Snyder do you remember Mr. Mara telling you about an agreement to keep players salaries down during the uncapped year?
A: I have no recollection of any such conversation.
Q: What about this e-mail in which you reference just such a conversation, does that refresh your recollection at all??
A: Nope, I don't remember anything about it. etc., etc., etc.

- Each of the 32 clubs and the NFL as an entity are defendants in the original action. Any defendant is allowed to make cross-claims against the other defendants seeking indemnity and/or other relief. So, yes, the Skins could file a cross-claim and assert that they did not partake in the collusive agreement and, in fact, were subsequently punished for doing so. They could then seek damages in their own right and/or ask that they be indemnified against any damages awarded to the players. The problem, of course, is that, by failing to make the secret agreeement public, the Skins did partake in collusive behavior - just not to the extent that the rest of the league did.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

So if this is the “nuclear option” it makes you think the Redskins/Cowboys knew this would happen based off of their arguments in arbitration. It kind of sounds like we did go nuclear, right?

I wouldn't speculate as to what the Skins "knew" would happen. I think (and I am pretty sure I said so early in the prior thread) that, once Mara made his comments, he opened the league up to this kind of action regardless of the Redskins filing a complaint. If anything, I think the Skins & Cowboys tried hard to contain the fight by pursuing it through their weakest legal avenue. Again, as far as the collusion goes, Snyder's and Jerry's hands are not exactly pristine. To a certain extent, they were playing both ends against the middle and it now has the potential to spiral wayyyy beyond their initial manipulations.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

- It is a civil action - more correctly, it is the continuation of an already settled civil action. The NFLPA has requested that the Federal District Court reopen the 1993 Settlement Agreement between the NFLPA that resolved the lawsuit which, eventually, initiated the unrestricted free agent era. All CBA's since then have been approved by the Federal Court as amendments to the original 1993 Settlement agreement.

- If you're called as a witness, yes, you must testify. Of course, if your memory goes bad on the stand ... well, that's just the way it goes ...
Q: Mr. Snyder do you remember Mr. Mara telling you about an agreement to keep players salaries down during the uncapped year?
A: I have no recollection of any such conversation.
Q: What about this e-mail in which you reference just such a conversation, does that refresh your recollection at all??
A: Nope, I don't remember anything about it. etc., etc., etc.

- Each of the 32 clubs and the NFL as an entity are defendants in the original action. Any defendant is allowed to make cross-claims against the other defendants seeking indemnity and/or other relief. So, yes, the Skins could file a cross-claim and assert that they did not partake in the collusive agreement and, in fact, were subsequently punished for doing so. They could then seek damages in their own right and/or ask that they be indemnified against any damages awarded to the players. The problem, of course, is that, by failing to make the secret agreeement public, the Skins did partake in collusive behavior - just not to the extent that the rest of the league did.



I wouldn't speculate as to what the Skins "knew" would happen. I think (and I am pretty sure I said so early in the prior thread) that, once Mara made his comments, he opened the league up to this kind of action regardless of the Redskins filing a complaint. If anything, I think the Skins & Cowboys tried hard to contain the fight by pursuing it through their weakest legal avenue. Again, as far as the collusion goes, Snyder's and Jerry's hands are not exactly pristine. To a certain extent, they were playing both ends against the middle and it now has the potential to spiral wayyyy beyond their initial manipulations.

So what are the chances this thing continues, can the original decision not be reopened?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

So what are the chances this thing continues, can the original decision not be reopened?

Don't they stand alone? That decision is not relavent to the collusion in question?

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Don't they stand alone? That decision is not relavent to the collusion in question?

Talking about the '93 reggie white vs nfl decision.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I wouldn't speculate as to what the Skins "knew" would happen. I think (and I am pretty sure I said so early in the prior thread) that, once Mara made his comments, he opened the league up to this kind of action regardless of the Redskins filing a complaint. If anything, I think the Skins & Cowboys tried hard to contain the fight by pursuing it through their weakest legal avenue. Again, as far as the collusion goes, Snyder's and Jerry's hands are not exactly pristine. To a certain extent, they were playing both ends against the middle and it now has the potential to spiral wayyyy beyond their initial manipulations.

Wow, so basicially Mara is one of the biggest idiots of all time?

Still i think its reasonable to speculate the Redskins and Cowboys knew that this was a likely outcome partly based off of their own actions. Like you said the NFLPA was waiting on the possibility of documents released through discovery that the Redskins/Cowboys were requesting. You don’t request that in arbitration knowing the consequences if youre bluffing right? I think this thing passed being just a pissing match a while back.

Whats interesting to me is that even though there is no apparent reason (right now) to think that well get our salary cap space back it feels like were winning in the form of good PR. It seems like almost everyone is on the Redskins/Cowboys side when it comes to this whole thing, and has been since the start. But that may have changed if the Redskins/Cowboys sued the NFL in a very public format. Letting the NFLPA do that may be better for positive PR, and ultimately the revenues, for 2 of the most popular teams.

I feel like the first rule of defending yourself civilly is to countersue so perhaps making a “cross claim” is true too in this regard. And if the Redskins/Cowboys had already formed a relationship with the NFLPA maybe they could help in forging a potential settlement, which could make things a lot less ugly for everyone. The NFLPA can only sue for more money to go to its players in the form of salary cap, right? Im sure 2 of the biggest and most profitable teams wouldnt mind having a bigger salary cap.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

@ Smoot - you said you heard about this as a possibility a couple days ago. Do you know if NFLPA only planned to sue IF the lawsuit was dismissed?

Perhaps they intended to do so all along but were waiting for any documents that may have been released if the arbitration claim had gone foward? The NFLPA is basing their suit in part on the arbitration claim the Redskins/Cowboys had; however, i find it odd that the NFLPA waited until the day after that was dismissed.

@ Joe - It sounds like the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints are essentially witness for the plaintiff. If the NFLPA is suing the owners (is that who they are suing) is there any reason to think any of those teams will be forced to testify essentially against themselves. Is this civil court? Don’t you have to testify in civil court if youre a witness, even if youre the defendant? Any chance any of these 4 teams would want to join as plaintiffs? Is that even possible?

So if this is the “nuclear option” it makes you think the Redskins/Cowboys knew this would happen based off of their arguments in arbitration. It kind of sounds like we did go nuclear, right?

I don't know. All I was told was a potential lawsuit by the NFLPA alleging collusion could be coming this week

[SBXVII]

I think it's going to get interesting. Not only do the owners (to include the Skins) now have to worry about this claim but I'd imagine their possibly losing their exemption as well.


I wonder if Hoop has any incite he'd like to add to this new developement?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think it's going to get interesting. Not only do the owners (to include the Skins) now have to worry about this claim but I'd imagine their possibly losing their exemption as well.


I wonder if Hoop has any incite he'd like to add to this new developement?

I'll try not to incite any riots.

I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?

Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.

Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.

They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?

Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.

Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I'll try not to incite any riots.

I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?

Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.

Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.

They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?

Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.

Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.

In your complaint, you only need to allege facts - which if true - prove your case. In a considering a Motion to Dismiss, the judge must assume the facts alleged as true. If the facts as alleged are legally sufficient to constitute a breach of the 1993 Settlement Agreement - then the NFL's motion to dismiss will be denied and the NFLPA can proceed to the discovery phase and obtain the NFL's documents, depose all the owners, etc., etc. And of course, there is always Mara's statement which seems to me primae facie proof of collusion.

While I agree the NFLPA's assertion that they had no idea the reallocation was intended to punish teams for not colluding sounds a bit like Captain Renault's declaration that he was "shocked to find gambling is going on here!!". For the purposes of preventing the NFLPA from getting discovery, however, it is assumed to be true.

To me, unless the NFL wins its waiver argument, the NFLPA is going have a lot of fun airing out the owners dirty laundry. At the same time, the waiver argument is not just pissing in the wind.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I'll try not to incite any riots.

I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?

Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.

Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.

They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?

Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.

Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.

#1- any good lawyer knows you don't give up all your evidence up front.

#2- anyone reviewing this case can see the NFLPA really didn't have a choice. In other words the choice was not made with out duress. The NFLPA was going to get screwed either way.

#3- I think almost all of us could guess the NFL was colluding but it was not admitted to by the NFL until after the meeting with the NFLPA and the two teams were punished.

I think now that the NFLPA has evidence of collusion and the fact they were forced to agree to what the NFL wanted to do should entitle them to have it brought before a judge to be heard. Honestly I think the NFLPA might win this. Possibly to the detriment to all the owners but again I doubt it gets that far. I foresee some form of settlement between the NFL and NFLPA. But I have been wrong before. Would it make the whole 2011 CBA null and void forcing both sides to start over again? This would give the NFLPA a huge advantage in negotiations.