NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[Evilgrin]

It's pretty funny to watch this all blow up in Goodell's face, they had to look beyond the penalties that they gave to 4 teams, and they didn't.

[SBXVII]

The problem is I think the NFL thinks it's bigger then it really is. It thinks all the owners will when faced with a penalty or punishment will take said punishment and forget about it.... kinda like how the Mafia works. Instead in this new day and age the new young owners of today simply don't take this crap laying down.


What I really wonder is how much of this was the NFLPA waiting to see how our appeal played out before they filed and how much the Redskins and Cowboys are assisting in the process? Could there have been a behind the scene's agreement between the two teams and the NFLPA to admit there was collusion for their assistance? Technically the 4 teams who didn't participate should not be punished even though they are a part of the group.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The problem is I think the NFL thinks it's bigger then it really is. It thinks all the owners will when faced with a penalty or punishment will take said punishment and forget about it.... kinda like how the Mafia works. Instead in this new day and age the new young owners of today simply don't take this crap laying down.


What I really wonder is how much of this was the NFLPA waiting to see how our appeal played out before they filed and how much the Redskins and Cowboys are assisting in the process? Could there have been a behind the scene's agreement between the two teams and the NFLPA to admit there was collusion for their assistance? Technically the 4 teams who didn't participate should not be punished even though they are a part of the group.

Technically, but pretty sure they can't avoid damages because they are part of the NFL?

I think there is no coincidence they waited for the hearing to be dismissed, and then filed, it's probably another piece of evidence.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The problem is I think the NFL thinks it's bigger then it really is. It thinks all the owners will when faced with a penalty or punishment will take said punishment and forget about it.... kinda like how the Mafia works. Instead in this new day and age the new young owners of today simply don't take this crap laying down.


What I really wonder is how much of this was the NFLPA waiting to see how our appeal played out before they filed and how much the Redskins and Cowboys are assisting in the process? Could there have been a behind the scene's agreement between the two teams and the NFLPA to admit there was collusion for their assistance? Technically the 4 teams who didn't participate should not be punished even though they are a part of the group.

I dont think the Skins/Cowboys likely were in talks with the PA, as they are still the enemy really. I think it's probably more closely tied to the PA being prepared to file this the moment the arbitrator rendered judgement. You hold off in filing to possibly gather more ammunition for the filing. The arbitrators decision decided that they would have to run with what they had already. Basically public statements.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I dont think the Skins/Cowboys likely were in talks with the PA, as they are still the enemy really. I think it's probably more closely tied to the PA being prepared to file this the moment the arbitrator rendered judgement. You hold off in filing to possibly gather more ammunition for the filing. The arbitrators decision decided that they would have to run with what they had already. Basically public statements.

This. Part of the arbitration decision indicated that the Cowboys and Skins were seeking document discovery concerning the alleged collusion. I am sure the NFLPA was also interested in those types of documents and wanted to see what would come out in the arbitration.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This. Part of the arbitration decision indicated that the Cowboys and Skins were seeking document discovery concerning the alleged collusion. I am sure the NFLPA was also interested in those types of documents and wanted to see what would come out in the arbitration.

So just throwing it out there: the Arbitrator either dismissed because he agreed with the NFL/Goodell/Mara in that it was not his venue to hear the appeal.... or he dismissed based off the idea that both the NFL and NFLPA have an agreement and the two teams are crap out of luck in their appeal.

Now that the NFLPA has filed a suit does it not now show they did not agree to everything the NFL is saying was agreed to and could not the Arbitrator now say "his ruling was based off the idea both the NFL and NFLPA were in agreement" and reopen the case? Perhaps not though rulings are usually final, but this is interesting.

Now I wonder how much flack DSmith got from the players when they learned he supposedly agreed with the NFL. Again probably reading too much into it cause they could have voted him out right after he made the agreement and they didn't.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I dont think the Skins/Cowboys likely were in talks with the PA, as they are still the enemy really. I think it's probably more closely tied to the PA being prepared to file this the moment the arbitrator rendered judgement. You hold off in filing to possibly gather more ammunition for the filing. The arbitrators decision decided that they would have to run with what they had already. Basically public statements.

I think this is on the money. I think the NFLPA decide they were going to sue, and were waiting to see if they got any juicy evidence out of the arbitration hearing. One of the key elements of the arbitration was that the Skins and Cowboys were seeking discovery on certain documents - that the NFLPA would then be able to receive.

I believe the Skins and Cowboys were using that potential discovery as a threat to get the League to settle on reduced penalties - if the arbitration claim wasn't dismissed.

The NFLPA was hoping to get new information, and waited to file this suit until it was clear they weren't getting anything new.

[FRPLG]

Uggg...what a bunch of donkey idiots the owners are. Unless they get off on the language of the CBA waiving rights on these claims they're likely going to get their ass handed to them.

Jones and Snyder then are going to have to pay on both ends...for not colluding...and for their ass-hat partners actually colluding. Ain't that rich!

How in the world these guys thought they could do this, strike that...

How in the world these guys thought they could publicly punish two teams for this and that it wasn't openly admitting collusion is seriously baffling. I have to think their lawyers must not have been seriously consulted. I can't even think that Goodell thought this was a good idea. It justs reeks of a couple owners, dumb ones at that, deciding to seek revenge against other owners and openly poking the NFPLA in the eye with a stick in doing so. Epic stupidity.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Uggg...what a bunch of donkey idiots the owners are. Unless they get off on the language of the CBA waiving rights on these claims they're likely going to get their ass handed to them.

Jones and Snyder then are going to have to pay on both ends...for not colluding...and for their ass-hat partners actually colluding. Ain't that rich!

How in the world these guys thought they could do this, strike that...

How in the world these guys thought they could publicly punish two teams for this and that it wasn't openly admitting collusion is seriously baffling. I have to think their lawyers must not have been seriously consulted. I can't even think that Goodell thought this was a good idea. It justs reeks of a couple owners, dumb ones at that, deciding to seek revenge against other owners and openly poking the NFPLA in the eye with a stick in doing so. Epic stupidity.

Agree with part of this - completely stupid to strongarm the NFLPA into modifying the salary cap to punish two teams. Best case, they waste political capital that would be better used somewhere else. Worst case, it devolves into this.

My opinion is that DeMaurice Smith got clowned one too many times and is now NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. Would have been better to make him look good every once in a while and keep him in the League's pocket.

As for whether this was Goodell's idea, I suspect he didn't think this was a good idea but was forced to take this line by the owners. I think that's why Mara was out front and center on this instead of Goodell (untill Mara got really stupid with his wording.)

As for the collusion, they may or may not have been (probably were, imo) - but I still haven't seen any evidence that has any chance of holding up in court.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

what really pisses me off about the NFLs position in this is that they had no reason at all to impose the penalties on the skins and cowboys, other than revenge. the NFL got what it wanted in the CBA talks - an deal that heavily favored the league. The skins and cowboys got what they wanted by getting their books clean. IMO Mara's thirst for blood created a complete mess for the league. Mara's public comments only made things worse. the league looks really bad right now, and deservedly so.

[JoeRedskin]

Okay - I think it comes down to a balancing of two legal concepts: (1) settlements are settlements; versus (2) bad faith can't triumph.

The procedural background: In the early 90's Reggie White and the NFLPA sue the NFL and the 32 clubs (the "Defendants") in order to become a free agent. Long story short, in 1993, the Defendants settle the suit and, as part of that settlement agreement, agrees to institute a free agency system through negotiations with the NFLPA. As a result, each CBA agreement is incorporated into the terms of the 1993 Settlement and is considered an amendment of that Settlement.

Each Sides Arguments: The NFLPA is now asserting that the owners actions in 2010 were collusive and constituted a breach of the 1993 Settlement as it was amended by the 2006 CBA. As such, they are asking the Court that presided over the 1993 settlement to reopen the case for the specific purpose of determining awarding damages for the alleged breach.

Based on the NFL's attorney's statements, the NFL will counter that the 1993 Settlement was amended again in 2011 and, as part of that amendment and as a precondition for it, the NFLPA specifically waived any claims for collusion - whether known or unknown to the NFLPA. As such, even if collusion occurred in breach of the 2006 Amendment, the NFLPA waived their rights to sue for such breaches in the 2011 Amendment.

My Off The Cuff, Free Of Charge To Fellow Warpathers Analysis: As I said at the beginning, two legal concepts appear to be in conflict. On one hand you have the principle that "settlement are meant to settle" versus the age old "liars never prosper".

The phrase "forego all claims known or unknown" is common in settlements and is meant to prohibit folks from coming back and nitpicking a settlement. People enter into settlements in order to resolve their differences and finally put an end to matters. One of the benefits of a settlement is that it is just what its name implies - a settlement so that parties can move on and not worry about old issues being constantly trotted out over and over again. Accordingly, courts tend to put the burden on those trying to reopen settlements and, usually, saying "gosh jeepers, I didnt realize all of the results" is not justification for reopening an agreed upon settlement. If you didn't do your due diligence or didn't fully realize the ramifications of your actions, well, too bad, so sad for you - should've thunk of that before signing your John Hancock.

ON THE OTHER HAND - and believe it or not - the law does not like liars. Operating in bad faith and working to deprive a party of facts and knowledge generally has ramifications. Settlements are contract negotions and, implicit in all such negotions, is the duty of good faith. Contracts entered into in bad faith will not be enforceable by the party exercising bad faith.

IN THIS CASE - the question to me seems to be, when settling collusion claims shouldn't you expect that the alleged collusion involved secrecy and, as such, by giving up your rights to allege collusion aren't you giving up your right to assert that the collusive parties acted secretly? Or is the underlying lie in this case beyond the pale of reasonable expectations and, as such, something the NFLPA could not be deemed to reasonably have waived.

I really don't know how the court will read the waiver - it is dependent on the governing law and the specific facts. I have no doubt that is where the lawyers who make the big bucks will be generating their fees.

Disclaimer: All of the above is stream of conscience written analysis based on reading the complaint, no legal research, working only from memory, about 10 minutes of analytical thought and minimalist editing.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay - I think it comes down to a balancing of two legal concepts: (1) settlements are settlements; versus (2) bad faith can't triumph.

The procedural background: In the early 90's Reggie White and the NFLPA sue the NFL and the 32 clubs (the "Defendants") in order to become a free agent. Long story short, in 1993, the Defendants settle the suit and, as part of that settlement agreement, agrees to institute a free agency system through negotiations with the NFLPA. As a result, each CBA agreement is incorporated into the terms of the 1993 Settlement and is considered an amendment of that Settlement.

Each Sides Arguments: The NFLPA is now asserting that the owners actions in 2010 were collusive and constituted a breach of the 1993 Settlement as it was amended by the 2006 CBA. As such, they are asking the Court that presided over the 1993 settlement to reopen the case for the specific purpose of determining awarding damages for the alleged breach.

Based on the NFL's attorney's statements, the NFL will counter that the 1993 Settlement was amended again in 2011 and, as part of that amendment and as a precondition for it, the NFLPA specifically waived any claims for collusion - whether known or unknown to the NFLPA. As such, even if collusion occurred in breach of the 2006 Amendment, the NFLPA waived their rights to sue for such breaches in the 2011 Amendment.

My Off The Cuff, Free Of Charge To Fellow Warpathers Analysis: As I said at the beginning, two legal concepts appear to be in conflict. On one hand you have the principle that "settlement are meant to settle" versus the age old "liars never prosper".

The phrase "forego all claims known or unknown" is common in settlements and is meant to prohibit folks from coming back and nitpicking a settlement. People enter into settlements in order to resolve their differences and finally put an end to matters. One of the benefits of a settlement is that it is just what its name implies - a settlement so that parties can move on and not worry about old issues being constantly trotted out over and over again. Accordingly, courts tend to put the burden on those trying to reopen settlements and, usually, saying "gosh jeepers, I didnt realize all of the results" is not justification for reopening an agreed upon settlement. If you didn't do your due diligence or didn't fully realize the ramifications of your actions, well, too bad, so sad for you - should've thunk of that before signing your John Hancock.

ON THE OTHER HAND - and believe it or not - the law does not like liars. Operating in bad faith and working to deprive a party of facts and knowledge generally has ramifications. Settlements are contract negotions and, implicit in all such negotions, is the duty of good faith. Contracts entered into in bad faith will not be enforceable by the party exercising bad faith.

IN THIS CASE - the question to me seems to be, when settling collusion claims shouldn't you expect that the alleged collusion involved secrecy and, as such, by giving up your rights to allege collusion aren't you giving up your right to assert that the collusive parties acted secretly? Or is the underlying lie in this case beyond the pale of reasonable expectations and, as such, something the NFLPA could not be deemed to reasonably have waived.

I really don't know how the court will read the waiver - it is dependent on the governing law and the specific facts. I have no doubt that is where the lawyers who make the big bucks will be generating their fees.

Disclaimer: All of the above is stream of conscience written analysis based on reading the complaint, no legal research, working only from memory, about 10 minutes of analytical thought and minimalist editing.

Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.

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.

[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.