It's a good thing Larry Johnson's suspension came during Kansas City's bye week, because it's taking up a lot of the team's time .
Johnson is planning to file his appeal regarding the suspension Friday, according to ESPN. Meanwhile, the Chiefs and Johnson are hoping to solve their differences without a hearing.
Johnson's agent Peter Schaffer told the Kansas City Star that the two sides are working on a settlement that would help decide Johnson's future. Asked whether that settlement would mean Johnson was heading elsewhere, Schaffer said "not necessarily."
A potential hearing would occur on Tuesday.
"The best-case scenario is we find a way to keep it positive," Schaffer
said. "There's a lot of things in play, and nothing has been decided."
The current leadership of the Chiefs and Johnson have put off-field wrangling behind them before. The team won a grievance in April that decided Johnson's salary for 2009 would no longer be guaranteed. The Chiefs chose to keep him anyway after a positive offseason.
Johnson is currently set to miss one game, but two checks. (Players are paid 1/17th of their yearly salary during the bye week.) Mike Florio points out from the road to NYC that a settlement could possibly allow Johnson to get back one week of his salary, but still serve a one game suspension.
It's probably not safe to assume any outcome regarding Johnson's future, because the principal parties involved likely don't know how this will turn out yet.
Larry Johnson filing appeal, talking settlement
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 30, 2009 11:10 AM ET
Permalink
20 Comments
Latest stories in: Kansas City Chiefs, Latest News and Rumors, NFL Mobile Exclusives - Rumors, Top Stories
Test comment
What's there to settle? He needs to stop:
Beating women
Disrespecting his coach
Using homophobic slurs
He needs to start:
Producing
They should have suspended him for four games, then cut his a$$.
"The best-case scenario is we find a way to keep it positive"
The Chiefs can be positive that A) LJ is an A-Hole, and B) nowhere near as good a player as he used to be.
Why would they only separate him from the team? He made divisive comments and those in the NFL are held to a higher standard around there. Shouldn't they be talking about whether or not he can be in the NFL at all? Or at least make it publicly known that he will never be allowed to be part of an ownership group.
this is ridiculous. there is no doubt he did what he did, why would they "settle"? why would Larry appeal if he apologized and "accepted" responsibility for his actions?
if you appeal a simple suspension for a glaringly obvious offense, then that tells me you're not truly sorry.
take your punishment like a man. LJ is such a p*ssy.
@shinsnake
If every owner in the league decides it'd be a bad financial move to work with him, then he'd be effectively out of the league. That's the market at work, whether you're a problem child player or a polarizing owner-candidate.
But Larry'll get a "fresh start" somewhere else by the beginning of next season. The local papers will write about his work ethic and attitude change. Then push will come to shove and he'll have to produce, and he'll still be an over 30 RB on the decline.
I'm sure Rush could get a "2nd chance" too, if he made the same kind of sincere-sounding phony apology that LJ's made/will make. But he'd alienate his listeners that way. It's all about choices.
Anyone ever heard of free speech? This is ridiculous.
FarmerMonkey
But I didn't hear Goodell, D Smith, Roman Oben, James Farrior, Al Sharpton or anyone else come out and say that he should be kicked out of the league. I thought standards of denying league participation had been set and people were to be held accountable for their words. Guess I was wrong.
In truth, I don't actually believe he should be kicked out of the league or even suspended and I know that arguing for his expulsion from the league is incredibly stupid. I'm just pointing out that stupidity as it was previously displayed in their hypocritical, one sided stands.
FarmerMonkey
And also, why would it take all the NFL owners agreeing to not work with him to kick him out of the league? Shouldn't it just take a stand by the NFLPA, a single owner and the words of the commish? Again, I thought we hashed out all the ground rules on how much it takes to keep someone out of the league?
"Anyone ever heard of free speech?"
Yes. Too bad it doesn't apply here.
Go question your boss' qualifications for their job and see how long you last....
Hey bring him back...LJ said he was really really sorry for spitting drinks in chicks faces , pulling a gun on a chick in his apt, calling people faggots, disrespecting his coaches...he's really really sorry and he said he would NEVER EVER do it again
We forgive you LJ, youre really a great guy underneath it all
"Mike Florio points out from the road to NYC that a settlement could possibly allow Johnson to get back one week of his salary, but still serve a one game suspension. "
___________
Does this mean Florio is going to be "whining" again on Monday/Tuesday about the 14 hour drive?
"K-yle_style says:
October 30, 2009 11:59 AM
Anyone ever heard of free speech? This is ridiculous."
Please look up free speech and how it applies.
I hope that they don't cut him. That is what LJ wants. I hope that they (and they will) win the appeal and suspend him. Then move him to 3rd string with Kolby Smith coming back from injury. Trot his butt out there each week for games and make him stand on the sidelines with Todd Haley. Don't even provide him a helmet, since he won't need it. Give him the same visor that Haley is wearing that day. Make him follow Haley on the sidelines and bring Haley a drink or a hot dog every quarter. Don't let him sniff the field and definitely don't let him come close to the all time Chiefs rushing record. He will still collect his checks, but who cares....The Hunts have tons of money.
"K-yle_style says:
October 30, 2009 11:59 AM
Anyone ever heard of free speech? This is ridiculous."
"free speech" has its consequences. yes, you ARE free to say whatever you'd like. HOWEVER, if you say crap like this, you need to man-up and face the consequences.
basically, larry wants to talk however he wants without facing any ramifications. doesn't work that way. If i used that word at work i'd be fired by now. he gets a suspension and appeals?
bullcrap. own up to it LJ, stop being such a damn woman
No free speech in the NFL. Its a business, not a pride march at the capital.
Organizations in the NFL make money and Kansas City citizens are sick of this dude and the reproach he brings on this once fine franchise. People have called in all week talking about leaving the games if he ever suits up again.
I hope that LJ will grow up and surround himself with individuals and advisors that can help steer his life, because his playing days are numbered as he is a shell of the player he once was. But who knows, they just announced expansion in the UFL.
All this because he said...gasp...homo?
The NFL and the Chiefs absolutely have the right to take punitive action against LJ, since his notoriety is derived from his employment of said organizations.
Just like I have the right to take my business elsewhere when as I customer takes political correctness to the ridiculous extreme.
Is the NFL really that worried about losing the bunghole bandit demographic?
Just make him a healthy scratch each week. Don't cut him and give him the chance to latch on with a team for a play-off run.
Love the free speach crew. Same people that were saying screw Rush last week.
@shinsnake
Hypocritical from a moral perspective, maybe. Al Sharpton always likes to go after the "low-hanging fruit" rather than after, say, tackle real problems in his community like deadbeat fathers or disproportionate crime and drop-out rates for young, black men.
But not really from a business perspective. "Hypocritical" or not, Rush being an owner would piss more people off than LJ continuing to play in the NFL after saying "faggot".
Nobody passed a law that said Rush couldn't continue to try to be an owner, and nobody created an NFL by-law. Owners/Goodell/the other investors made a choice, plain and simple, that either:
A) Rush would damage their bottom line
B) they could curry favor with the players union
C) whatever other advantage they saw
It's silly to get on a soap box and act like the guy's civil rights were violated because he got pushed out. Rush made his bones by being controversial, and now people don't want the headaches associated with making him part of their club. All about choice.