——————————————–

Really? Honestly? Did it ever cross your mind for half a second that there “gasp” just MIGHT be information behind the scenes here that the general public doesnt know about yet?

If you actually believe that what you said is true, you are dumber than you look. And man…thats terrible if thats true.

You kind of contradicted yourself there, saying that the NFL has to show proof or lose the lawsuit but it will be Goodell that has to pay up if they lose. Goodell would be the one on trial and the NFL wouldn’t necessarily have to show anything, as the case is Vilma vs Goodell not Vilma vs the NFL.

———————————————–

That’s actually a very good point, since Vilma hasn’t sued the NFL in this case, I wonder if Goodell is actually allowed to use the NFL’s evidence against Vilma (whatever it is), in a private case. Very interesting indeed.

“The NFL will have to show proof or lose this lawsuit. I hope Goodell loses and has to pay millions out of his own pocket. He has been too heavy handed with punishments and too greedy with the players and now the referees.”

————————————————————————————————————

You kind of contradicted yourself there, saying that the NFL has to show proof or lose the lawsuit but it will be Goodell that has to pay up if they lose. Goodell would be the one on trial and the NFL wouldn’t necessarily have to show anything, as the case is Vilma vs Goodell not Vilma vs the NFL.

silentcount says: May 17, 2012 9:55 PM

FACTS that everyone should remember:
#1: The “Bounty System” is a term Goodell invented. The coaches NEVER admitted to having one. They simply agreed that pay-for-performance was joked about verbally during pre-game pep rallys (as most teams do, regarding interceptions, sacks & hard legal hits).
#2: The players said all along they never tried to injure another player or offered to pay or receive money.
#3: There has never been any evidence provided other than Goodell saying it did. There is evidence that Greg Williams said stupid stuff in meetings, but ONLY that.
#4: THE REAL EVIDENCE is what happens on the field when refs are watching your every move. The Saints had less personal fouls than most teams.
#5: Vilma knows there’s no evidence, if he knows he didn’t do what Goodell accused him of.

#1, Pay for performance = bounty and has been acknowledged by everyone from Loomis to audio recordings from during the games saying “Favre is out, where’s my money”?
#2 Refer to #1
#3 Even the owner was told of the bounty, he also told his employees that he was aware of it and they said they would stop the behavior
#4 Watching your every move, when did they add a ref per player on the field….
#5 See above #1, 2, 3, 4…

If at the very least you acknowledge there was an investigation, there were results, people that were investigated, clearly took responsibility for their actions in the investigation, you can only come up with 1 conclusion. There was a bounty program.

That has nothing to do with the accusation of defamation. Vilma’s atty is trying to do whats called discovery to try and usurp the leagues unwillingness to expose people as whistle blowers. That will be thrown out (75% chance), the CBA gives the commish great latitude, without repercussion. Being a civil case, the commish will bring (sealed investigative) document proving his public assertion, show it to the judge in closed meetings with the judge and the commish alone, case dismissed!

I don’t think the NFLPA has to become involved or “sue on his behalf,” as someone mentioned, as I don’t think this is a work issue nor a CBA issue. Put it this way: the NFLPA could never have negotiated away Vilma’s right to not be defamed. So this isn’t a question of Goodell acting within his power, as defamation could never be a granted power by the NFLPA.

Take that thought and pair it with the threshold for winning a defamation judgment… that Goodell did not have a reasonable reason to believe what he was saying about Vilma, and I think what this case comes down to is this:

Does the bounty evidence support Goodell’s public position regarding Vilma, or was Goodell just looking to drop some harsh penalty on somebody to send the message to the rest of the league? If there is no hard evidence of Vilma’s involvement, and one could reasonably look at the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion from Goodell (but one just as confident), then Goodell will look like he was trying to send a message but knowingly took it too far.

What exactly is your argument? At least have a valid point to make.

Totally cracks me up that you and people like ‘ikoikofinanay’ think they can run a multi-billion dollar business from the comfort of their stained underwear…just shut the F up already.

You don’t have a clue what goes on in the NFL and have probably never even played a down of football in your life. Just stick to your ‘fanstasy league’ and maybe someday you will actually have a girlfriend (or boyfriend).

and now that he has sued, he may have real issues playing in the nfl again.

the saints will move on.

and once again, vilma will find out about it from the television.

“This guarantees a few things.”

This guarantees nothing. Do you know what a complaint means? That someone had a filing fee. Attorneys take a really skeptical view of defamation claims in general, and public figure/public concern defamation claims in particular, for a reason. There may be a strategy his attorney is pursuing that this advances, but for the life of me, I can’t figure it out.

“This will ask the question why were the saints the only ones singled out?”

Based on what I’ve heard, my assumption has been that the reason they were singled out is because there was an investigation, they lied and performed a coverup, there was a whistleblower which required further investigation, that investigation was more fruitful, and the release of the audiotape prior to the 49ers game pretty much sealed the deal in terms of public opprobrium. Combine that with the general backdrop of “player safety”? That’s my understanding. What’s yours?”

——————————————————————————————————–

I think it’s just a ruse to get their hands on the evidence, which in their belief is none.

“So in suing Goddell and calling him out as a liar, if Goddell wins this case, I’m thinking he should counter-sue Vilma for the same charge of defamation of character.

Goody didn’t act on his own here, he had investigators, a committee and other influence presenting him with information. Let the people involved speak up and I’m thinking Vilma is gonna be eating crow very soon…”

————————————————————————————————————

I think Goodell will probably just act as if he’s above it and not lower himself to the standards of Vilma; I also wouldn’t be surprised if the NFL would tell him not to get involved.

Emmet, is that you.

Is that you Emmet?

“im just curious exactly how all of this is possible…wouldn’t the NFLPA have to sue the league on behalf of Vilmas essentially seeing as he is a member of the union and this is a “work” issue??”

————————————————————————————————————

I think if he were to sue the NFL, then yes the NFLPA would have to do it on his behalf but he’s suing the man who just happens to be the commissioner of the NFL.

Actual malice does not require malice in the everyday use of the word. It simply requires that the defendant either know the statements are false or have serious doubts about their truth. I think a key factor here will be the definitions of “bounty” and “pay for performance”. Various Saints personnel have copped to the latter but not the former. If Vilma’s lawyers can convince the court that these are distinct terms and that Vilma was suspended for being part of a “bounty” system while the evidence supports only a “pay for performance” system, then he can win.

In addition, since the plaintiff is Vilma alone and not all the suspended personnel, the NFL will have to provide specific evidence putting Vilma together with payments instead of just evidence that there were payments. Now we’ll see what the truth is about this $10,000 business.

Good luck to Vilma. My gut tells me that Goodell doesn’t have the goods and that he overestimated the credibility given to his investigation by Mary Jo White.

It doesn’t look good for either side, truth be told, so maybe we get some exposure to this “evidence” Goodell has, and settle this issue once and for all. Honestly, outside of media reports, I haven’t seen or read enough about this entire debacle to make an informed opinion.
What I do know is several careers have been jacked, many accusations made and many, many bad posts ending up in here.

It is rather humorous to see the haters out there, doing what they do best (LOL) I won’t hate on these Saints until it all comes out.