Comments on: Standard player contract opens up another potential avenue for legal challenge

By: tomsd1

tomsd1 — Tue, 08 May 2012 22:15:14 +0000

Since the current NFL contract is less than a year old – how does anyone make the assertion that the parties know how the provisions will be interpreted?

Secondly – reports in newspapers rarely are 100% factual.

And third, similar to analyzing Admin Law – interpreting what is meant by particular provisions, assuming there is that some ambiguity, will many often require the parties provide information from the bargaining process to better inform the court as to what the parties collective intent was at the time the particular provisions were drafted.

Fourth: I always laugh when attorney’s provide their opinions about what will surely happen – as nobody on this earth really knows for sure what will happen.

By: bearflagfan

bearflagfan — Tue, 08 May 2012 21:32:13 +0000

Maybe I’m missing something but it appears to me the official meeting has not taken place yet. If I were the NFL lawyers I would also argue the punishment hasn’t taken place yet. What we are informally calling an “appeal” in fact is the contract guaranteed hearing with counsel before the commissioner. That actually makes more sense than saying that the players have been punished have already had a hearing with the commissioner. It does not make sense to say you appeal before the very same entity who passed the original judgment. What I think would legally be defined as an appeal would not come until after a formal hearing with Commissioner Goddell. What’s missing is other parts of the standard contract that define the appeal process.

By: shzastl

shzastl — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:15:00 +0000

Two other points:

1) the only parties to the Player Contract are the player and the team. The team is not imposing the punishment, Goodell/the league is. Since the league is not a party, they are not violating the contract.

2) the contract also acknowledges that the CBA controls in case of conflict (para 21): “The provisions of this contract will govern the relationship between Player and Club unless there are conflicting provisions in any collective bargaining agreement in existence during the term of this contract, in which case the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement will take precedence over conflicting provisions of this contract relating to the rights or obligations of either party.”

By: shzastl

shzastl — Tue, 08 May 2012 17:28:32 +0000

They are getting a hearing. The appeal for which the players filed yesterday is listed in the CBA under the bold lettered heading “Hearings”. Article 46, Section 2.

By: ernie ernie

ernie ernie — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:32:13 +0000

Sure i’ll grant you a meeting but you will not see the evidence that i have i just want to hold you accountable for you words you speak to day and use them against you. And like Hargrove call you and tell you you can protect yourself if you change you report trust me i am the good guy here………lmao

————————————————–

What meeting. It would have been a hearing and they would be asked to testify and answer questions which all refused to do.

By: 4thqtrsaint

4thqtrsaint — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:25:45 +0000

“The Commissioner has a right to review the decision the Commissioner made”

Is this not a stupid line?

By: ernie ernie

ernie ernie — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:34:19 +0000

The NFL offered all parties the opportunity to represent themselves and they were told by there union reps and lawyers to shut up and not attend just so they could challenge the ruling later.
Bottom line, they knew they were guilty and are trying to Wiesel out of punishment through legal rangling, looking for loopholes.

By: meandjuliojonesdownbytheschoolyard

meandjuliojonesdownbytheschoolyard — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:53:48 +0000

They had their chance for a meeting and blew it off. This is what they get.

By: torridphenix

torridphenix — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:49:15 +0000

I’m in the legal field. An “opportunity for a hearing” does not mean a full blown jury trial or anything like it. It’s simply an opportunity to be heard by whoever will be the decision maker in their case. The difference between the two a common, albeit confusing, misconception. In this case, Goodell offered each player an opportunity to be heard, they declined. Given the consequences, the court may like to see something more but generally courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes involving union bargained agreements, especially when both sides know exactly what that specific language means and how it will be interpreted. The players have been given their negotiated “due process.” They were given their opportunity for a hearing with counsel present but chose to decline. While I don’t necessarily think that is fair, it is as simple as that.

By: mike83ri

mike83ri — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:48:25 +0000

besdayz says:
May 8, 2012 5:15 AM
A hearing is presumably when Vilma gets to bring his attorney.

Goodell did not offer that.

He just offered a meet and greet.

———————————

That’s funny, the article I read said indicated that the meeting request came from and was granted to Vilma’s attorney. Can you cite a source that indicates the attorney was not allowed to attend?

Didn’t think so.

By: eaglebobby

eaglebobby — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:39:59 +0000

I could have sworn that in another article, and for that fact, articles written by OTHER sportswriters, all of the players involved were invited to meet the commisioner–in fact, I believe in his statement, the commissioner said they were invited and to bring legal representation with them, and they in fact, refused. So that was their chance at a hearing. Therefore, the commsiossioner suspended him.

By: sloppydogg

sloppydogg — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:12:10 +0000

By: mancave001

mancave001 — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:49:32 +0000

This is stupid. Take your punishment, or appeal and then take it. PFT is starting to read like an insurance policy.

By: dae42

dae42 — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:33:21 +0000

Any story that assumes Goodell wasn’t aware of these types of details and distinctions is a clueless attempt at page views…in my humble opinion. Give me a break.

By: kokomike

kokomike — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:29:47 +0000

Perry Mason here. While I have represented most NFL players in courts of law, I do recognize that an NFL hearing is a kangaroo court.

By: besdayz

besdayz — Tue, 08 May 2012 09:15:10 +0000

A hearing is presumably when Vilma gets to bring his attorney.

Goodell did not offer that.

He just offered a meet and greet.

Lying scumbag

By: tomsd1

tomsd1 — Tue, 08 May 2012 08:53:35 +0000

As one who used to practice Contract Law (for the Feds even) – you can rest assured that the trail lawyers/researchers will be pouring over every provision of the Standard Contract to try and find some challenge/loophole/argument to overturn Goodell’s decision, seek a properly noticed/full hearing, and/or further modify the process, etc etc etc.

Now having said that – the Commish may have left himself some wiggle room with such a “harsh” (initial?) ruling and could cut it back to suspending Vilma for only half a season, whatever.

By: cwwgk

cwwgk — Tue, 08 May 2012 07:14:44 +0000

Wow. Little rusty on the principles of contract interpretation are we Mr. Florio?

By: shzastl

shzastl — Tue, 08 May 2012 04:50:20 +0000

The CBA language is mostly consistent with that except Article 46 describes the hearing as an “appeal” after the Commissioner imposes the punishment, whereas the contract says the punishment will not be imposed until after “the opportunity” for a hearing. Strange that there is an apparent inconsistency since the contract is an exhibit to the CBA.

In any event, in cases of such a conflict, the CBA language controls. Article II says: “The provisions of this Agreement supersede any conflicting provisions
in the Settlement Agreement, NFL Player Contract …” So that argument is a loser. Moreover, the suspension in fact would not take effect (i.e. be “imposed”) until after the player has “the opportunity” for the appeal.

By: thepftpaperchase

thepftpaperchase — Tue, 08 May 2012 04:03:59 +0000

Mike: Is there a difference between a hearing and a “full” hearing? You inserted the word “full” and I didn’t notice it when you cited Paragraph 15. I assume in either case that you’d be allowed to have an attorney as representation.

By: sonnyboychris

sonnyboychris — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:57:03 +0000

Hello Geniuses!!! A trip to the principals office is not the same as a hearing. Vilma didn’t waive the hearing that is mentioned in this article, it wasn’t offered.

Get off of your knees for second and read.

By: discojoe

discojoe — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:51:12 +0000

Redundant somewhat, my apologies. I should have been clearer. There is nothing I read in the contract language that indicates the league has to offer the hearing, only that ibis available if requested.

By: discojoe

discojoe — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:47:43 +0000

The league could also easily argue that Vilma waived his right to a pre-ruling hearing. Especially in Vilma’s case, where it has been widely reported (kudos to PFT) that his attorney requested a meeting, then withdrew the request.

By: Mike Florio

Mike Florio — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:31:25 +0000

He didn’t offer a full hearing, just an opportunity to meet with Goodell. There’s a big difference.

By: truthfactory

truthfactory — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:30:21 +0000

Didn’t you already write an article explaining that Goodell offered Vilma a hearing, then Vilma accepted the offer, then changed his mind and said he didn’t want one?

By extending the offer, shouldn’t that satisfy the criteria that your referencing in this article??