Skip to content

Union sues NFL, claims collusion during uncapped year

demaurice-smith Getty Images

During the 2010 season, there was no salary cap. But most NFL teams operated as if there were a salary cap, and two teams that didn’t — the Redskins and Cowboys — have since been penalized by the league.

That smells like collusion among the owners, and now the NFL Players Association is filing a lawsuit alleging just that.

The NFLPA’s suit says the owners conspired to have a secret salary cap of $123 million for the 2010 season, which was supposed to be the uncapped year.

“When the rules are broken in a way that hurts the game, we have an obligation to act. We cannot standby when we now know that the owners conspired to collude,” NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith said.

The NFL says the lawsuit, which is being filed in the court of Judge David Doty, is prohibited by the current Collective Bargaining Agreement — the owners’ argument is that when the union accepted the current deal last year, the players were waiving their right to file this kind of lawsuit.

“The filing of these claims is prohibited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and separately, by an agreement signed by the players’ attorneys last August,” the NFL said in a statement. “The claims have absolutely no merit and we fully expect them to be dismissed. On multiple occasions, the players and their representatives specifically dismissed all claims, known or unknown, whether pending or not.”

News of the lawsuit comes one day after the Redskins and Cowboys failed in their appeal of their combined $46 million in salary cap penalties for their actions during the uncapped year. What’s surprising is that when the NFL announced that punishment for the Redskins and Cowboys — which also included raising the salary caps of 28 of the other 30 teams — the union signed off on it. Now the union says what the owners did during the uncapped year was illegal.

Permalink 148 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
148 Responses to “Union sues NFL, claims collusion during uncapped year”
  1. mrsarvis says: May 23, 2012 12:13 PM

    The NFL is like the mob, only they have better lawyers. Good luck NFLPA.

  2. jagsfanugh says: May 23, 2012 12:14 PM

    Ok so now they have a 10 year labor peace plan? Hmm sounds like someone got sand kicked on him and now the kids don’t get along.

  3. teamobijuan says: May 23, 2012 12:15 PM

    The leagues reaffirmation of the Cowboys’ and Redskins’ punishments is check and mate in this case.

  4. cleminem757 says: May 23, 2012 12:15 PM

    This is what you get for messing with Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones!!! Should have left them alone, now you wont be able to blame them for taking you to court. Nice move!!!

  5. richkotite says: May 23, 2012 12:16 PM

    It’s about time someone woke up and filed the Collusion claim. My grandmother saw this move coming…..and she’s been dead for 15 years.

  6. The Shoeman says: May 23, 2012 12:16 PM

    Sounds like Jerry and Dan . . . got their panties in a bunch.

    Can’t stand, not getting their way.
    and now are trying to ruin their own business.

  7. dryzzt23 says: May 23, 2012 12:17 PM

    STOP with the suing!

    The players cannot have it every way they want it. I am so tired of players (current and former), who knew the risks and cashed NFL checks, sue over injuries that they were well aware off before they took the field.

    It’s time to go to a loser pays litigation system so that if/when the players/NFLPA loses, they must pay the NFL’s legal costs.
    Moreover, I feel that NFL player salaries should be decreased by 20% across the board due to the costs the NFL is incurring from all these lawsuits.
    Make the players sign right-to-sue waivers for every single thing the players do, perhaps that will protect the NFL.

  8. spartan822 says: May 23, 2012 12:17 PM

    DeMaurice Smith is doing everything he can to ruin the NFL.

  9. worldclassjerk says: May 23, 2012 12:19 PM

    This is the NFL trying to have its cake and eat it to. They first punish the Redskins and Cowboys for not sticking to the secret, illegal salary cap. Then, they strong-arm the NFLPA into agreeing to the punishments with the threat of a reduced salary cap. And finally, when the NFLPA says “wait a minute…”, the NFL claims that the NFLPA can’t do a thing about it.

    I’m not surprised by the NFL, but they will eventually get smacked down big time if they keep acting as if they make and enforce all rules and laws, with no possible repercussions.

  10. desmondclee says: May 23, 2012 12:19 PM

    Potential small problem with the NFL’s point on the release the NFLPA signed? The wrong occurred AFTER the NFL and NFLPA executed the release last year. In particular, the wrongful act happened on about March 12, 2012, when the NFL breached the uncapped year provisions of the CBA. Thus, the release, which pre-dates the NFL’s collusion, won’t apply and won’t bar the lawsuit.

  11. basballguy says: May 23, 2012 12:20 PM

    NFLPA is a joke of an organization

  12. binkystevens says: May 23, 2012 12:20 PM

    And this is exactly why I hate unions.

  13. mushin9 says: May 23, 2012 12:20 PM

    Coming soon to every cable carrier except Time Warner, the NFL Lawsuit Network. 24/7 legal battles, 365 days of the year. Knee pads on attorneys will be mandatory until that trial is settled tonight during prime time.

  14. thankheavenfornumberseven says: May 23, 2012 12:21 PM

    As long as they keep playing games, they can fight all they want.

  15. realitypolice says: May 23, 2012 12:21 PM

    Brilliant.

    The best way to prove the existence of a secret salary cap was to allow the league to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys for violating it.

    If they didn’t allow the league to punish teams for violating unwritten rules, how could they later prove those rules existed?

    By signing off on the punishment, the NFLPA set in stone the most significant piece of evidence it needed to prove collusion.

    The NFL has been badly outmaneuvered and looks ridiculous.

  16. cooklynn17 says: May 23, 2012 12:23 PM

    The union consists of a bunch of dumb asses, kind of reminds me of congress.

    You can’t fight City Hall…

    From the movie Taken……………”Good Luck”.

  17. deathtoromo says: May 23, 2012 12:23 PM

    Good job Mara.

  18. pdxpanther says: May 23, 2012 12:24 PM

    DeMaurice just seems pissed that the union got fleeced on this deal and has to way 10 years before they can take the gavel out of Goodell’s hand. Sorry D, you had the chance during this CBA.

  19. bullcharger says: May 23, 2012 12:25 PM

    Not going to be easy to prove this one. To prove collusion you need to show that there was communcation and agreement on the 123 million dollar cap between the owners. The fact that most owners stayed under that number isn’t enough to prove anything.

  20. dldove77 says: May 23, 2012 12:26 PM

    Disband the union! Lockout these players and move forward without a union.

  21. hulkhogansays says: May 23, 2012 12:26 PM

    Don’t mess with the Redskins or you’ll get Orakpo’d, BROTHER!

  22. felcus says: May 23, 2012 12:26 PM

    This is why a lawyer like De Smith should not have been hired to head the PA. Upshaw, as a former player, seemed to run things much smoother. I don’t recall this many issues being raised between the league and PA during the Upshaw era. Sure the game has evolved, but the business aspect is getting in the way of the game more and more as time passes. With so much money involved I suppose it makes sense, but damn, it’s borderline too much and makes a fan want to give up.

  23. fafaflunky says: May 23, 2012 12:27 PM

    F mara

  24. fenom202 says: May 23, 2012 12:27 PM

    The skins and boys got in trouble for paying players.They were doing what the union fights for. COMPENSATING PLAYERS. Then the union (which I dont understand) sides with the NFL to penalize them. Now after the claim has been thrown out, they are suing because the owners colluded? WTF

  25. macwomack says: May 23, 2012 12:28 PM

    ha ha ha

  26. dcbassguy says: May 23, 2012 12:29 PM

    Stop wasting money on lawyers, and lower ticket prices!

  27. 4thqtrsaint says: May 23, 2012 12:29 PM

    And here… we… Go!

  28. hawkforlife says: May 23, 2012 12:30 PM

    We cannot standby when we now know that the owners conspired to collude

    —————-

    So why didn’t you file this in 2010 or at the latest in 2011. You knew about it then. What a joke this union is.

  29. unitedstateoftexas says: May 23, 2012 12:30 PM

    Jerry and Danny are getting the NFLPA to do their dirty work for them, removing them from the blame of imploding the NFL. THIS is why you don’t go against two of the wealthiest franchises in the NFL.

  30. cliffordc05 says: May 23, 2012 12:31 PM

    Apparently the NFL strongly believes that the NFLPA does not have the right to file this lawsuit or they never would have penalized the Cowboys/Redskins for violating their ‘gentlemens’ agreement’ or understanding or whatever it was. I guess this is what happens when you publicly admit that you engaged in collusion and punish your members for not abiding with the illegal arrangement. What a mess.

  31. dexterismyhero says: May 23, 2012 12:31 PM

    Disssss Missssssed……..just as Colonel Klink used to say it!!!!!!

  32. kokomike says: May 23, 2012 12:32 PM

    The NFL claims the Redskins and Cowboys agreed to an illegal salary cap, and then violated it.

    The NFLPA claims the NFL had an illegal salary cap.

    The NFL claims that the NFLPA waived all rights when they agreed with the NFL to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys for violating an illegal salary cap.

    The Redskins and Cowboys claim that the NFL approved all contracts, thus eliminating the NFL claim for any violation.

    The Special Master rules that the Redskins/Cowboys grievance is invalid under the CBA, but may have merit in other, more formal legal venues.

    The Redskins/Cowboys accept ruling, but will not comment further.

    Drew Brees wants an explanation.

  33. deadeye says: May 23, 2012 12:32 PM

    More litigation from the morons. Do they understand that if they sue the NFL out of existence, they lose their big paychecks? The NFLPA might very well be the dumbest union in history. And that is really saying something.

  34. erod22 says: May 23, 2012 12:33 PM

    This is homie trying to save face after getting his backside handed to him in the CBA negotiations.

    Yes, it’s illegal, but what can he win after signing off on it in the CBA.

    The NFL needs to focus on maintaining their antitrust exemption, otherwise the draft will be replaced by full-on free agency and the salary cap will be no more.

  35. bigjdve says: May 23, 2012 12:34 PM

    I am against the punishments to the Redskins and Cowboys. However this particular lawsuit by the NFLPA has already been lost as D Smith agreed to the punishments last year.

    I guess the players are just now catching up to what has happened.

    It should be interesting to see what happens, as this is something that the players should’ve been doing all along.

  36. mn2long says: May 23, 2012 12:34 PM

    There should be 2 owners immune from this lawsuit!

  37. cowboyfan45 says: May 23, 2012 12:35 PM

    “The Shoeman says:
    May 23, 2012 12:16 PM
    Sounds like Jerry and Dan . . . got their panties in a bunch.

    Can’t stand, not getting their way.
    and now are trying to ruin their own business.”

    so shoeman, if you went to buy a car and agreed on a price and bought the car and then two years later the dealer said you needed to pay them $2000 more because they decided to set a new price,…would you be irate??

  38. professorcolumbus says: May 23, 2012 12:36 PM

    For once, I side 100% with the NFLPA. The whole Cowboys and Redskins debacle should make this a no-brainer decision (and I hate both those teams and their owners.)

  39. gtisme says: May 23, 2012 12:36 PM

    What I dont get is why anyone would be pissed at the Players association on this one; you should be pissed at the arrogance of owners who clearly colluded in a year that was suppossed to be cap free.

    Ok, so the Redskins and Cowboys chose not to collude, why would you admit to collussion by taking away cap space. I cant think of any reason but arrogance, these are experienced business people for cripe’s sake. If you are mad that they did not join in, then do something privately or indirectly; at least not loudly admit that you told the owners to abide by a spend threshold in an uncapped year.

    I just want all these lawsuits to go away too, but this is the owners arrogance at play and thats where the anger should be directed. Clearly, billionaires do stupid things too.

  40. bobulated says: May 23, 2012 12:37 PM

    You can’t fine two of your members for not abiding by the double secret salary cap in an “uncapped” year that had been bargained in the previous CBA and then expect the union to roll over and pretend obvious collusion didn’t exist. Sure the NFL has good lawyers but the federal courts historically frown upon that sort of thing, just ask MLB.

  41. hrmlss says: May 23, 2012 12:37 PM

    Kill all the lawyers.

  42. playin2x says: May 23, 2012 12:38 PM

    @dryzzt23

    Did u even read the article … It’s about the uncapped year not injuries …

    What’s interesting is why now? They the nflpa signed off on the punishment when it was first levied on the skins and cowboys .. Makes u wonder

  43. karlton2 says: May 23, 2012 12:38 PM

    CBA Article 3, Section 3:

    (a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the
    Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to
    any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation…collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011…or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement.

    ————————————————

    The NFLPA agreed in the CBA that they can’t sue for collusion for years prior to 2011 and now they’re suing…for collusion…in 2010.

    Union fail.

  44. bhindenemylines says: May 23, 2012 12:38 PM

    Congrats GODdell and Mara!!!

    You have completely EFFED everything up, and as Wyatt’s old brother Chet said “Time to pay the fiddler, boys.”

  45. largent80 says: May 23, 2012 12:41 PM

    Provide email evidence or it didn’t happen, NFLPA.

  46. thraiderskin says: May 23, 2012 12:41 PM

    what are some of you people talking about? This has nothing to do with the machinations of the cowboys and Redskins, if you have already forgotten, it was the NFLPA, by agreeing to the punishment, who screwed the boys and Skins. I seriously doubt either team is pulling strings on this one.

  47. musicman495 says: May 23, 2012 12:42 PM

    Ok, I got the over/under on Roger Goodell deciding “to step down as NFL Commissioner to spend more time with his family” at March 1, 2013.

  48. skinsrock says: May 23, 2012 12:43 PM

    Now we’re talking… GET SOME!

  49. bhindenemylines says: May 23, 2012 12:43 PM

    spartan822 says:
    May 23, 2012 12:17 PM
    DeMaurice Smith is doing everything he can to ruin the NFL.
    ————-

    Ummm…this isn’t his fault.

    It is Mara’s and Goddell’s for siding with him.

    Had the two of them left the Cowboys and Skins alone, the back room collusion would never had seen the light of day.

    These two opened Pandora’s box.

    Now they have to deal with the consequences.

  50. skolvikesskol says: May 23, 2012 12:43 PM

    Ummmm. The cba doesnt give up their right to sue the nfl for breaking its own rules… Thats some kindergarten knowledge.

  51. tnazvol says: May 23, 2012 12:45 PM

    G#$D@#% lawyers are ruining my favorite game!!!

  52. bhindenemylines says: May 23, 2012 12:46 PM

    bullcharger says:
    May 23, 2012 12:25 PM
    Not going to be easy to prove this one. To prove collusion you need to show that there was communcation and agreement on the 123 million dollar cap between the owners. The fact that most owners stayed under that number isn’t enough to prove anything.
    ———————————

    The NFL penalizing the Cowboys and Skins for GOING OVER THE (FALSE) CAP (CREATED SECRETLY BY THE OWNERS), and the arbitrator upholding that punishment does prove it.

  53. musicman495 says: May 23, 2012 12:46 PM

    hawkforlife says: May 23, 2012 12:30 PM

    So why didn’t you file this in 2010 or at the latest in 2011. You knew about it then. What a joke this union is.
    ————————
    Actually, the NFL did not provide the evidence of collusion until the sanctions were announced against the Redskins and Cowboys. Which is also why this suit may go forward despite the CBA, because the union will argue that the CBA was agreed to without full knowledge of the collusion that took place.

  54. mancave001 says: May 23, 2012 12:48 PM

    bhindenemylines says:
    May 23, 2012 12:38 PM
    Congrats GODdell and Mara!!!

    You have completely EFFED everything up, and as Wyatt’s old brother Chet said “Time to pay the fiddler, boys.”
    ————————————–

    I’m all for criticizing GodofAll, but I don’t put this on him. Legally, this seems clear cut. The union waived its rights to sue on this issue.

  55. drbrousters says: May 23, 2012 12:50 PM

    Lawyers…Again, lawyers!!!!

  56. drbob117 says: May 23, 2012 12:50 PM

    All the time they spent last summer crafting the new CBA, arguing every minute point under the sun, and nobody brought up what would happen if the NFL tried to circumvent the “uncapped” year? You must be kidding.

  57. mybrunoblog says: May 23, 2012 12:52 PM

    Somewhere Tiki is of course “flabbergasted”

  58. whodeyben says: May 23, 2012 12:54 PM

    If the owners truly colluded, wouldn’t Dan and Jerry be able to provide some evidence of it? And if they had evidence, I would think that they would have used it as leverage against their salary cap issues with the league.

  59. LoCoSu@%s says: May 23, 2012 12:54 PM

    Well, at least we know Goodell will be very busy this season with the lawsuits.
    Less time for his arbitratry sanctions on players/teams.

  60. jimw81 says: May 23, 2012 12:56 PM

    Looks like NFLPA got bad legal advice.

  61. claysbar says: May 23, 2012 12:56 PM

    Notice how in the statement from the NFL, they in no way shape or form denied collusion, they simply state that with the players union signing the current CBA, the forfeited any rights to sue for this. Sound’s like the players union lawyers need to go back to remedial law classes.

  62. karlton2 says: May 23, 2012 12:58 PM

    skolvikesskol says:

    May 23, 2012 12:43 PM

    Ummmm. The cba doesnt give up their right to sue the nfl for breaking its own rules… Thats some kindergarten knowledge.

    —————————————————-
    Actually, it does. Just like if you’ve ever settled with an insurance company you will have to sign a waiver of all prior arising claims against them.

    It’s the same thing here. By agreeing to a new CBA, the NFLPA agreed to waive all prior claims against the NFL under the old and expired CBA. If the NFLPA wanted to sue they should have either done so before they agreed to the CBA or not agree to waive claims of collusion (which the NFL wouldn’t allow because, there was collusion).

    The NFLPA knows this; this ‘suit’ is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

  63. snowpea84 says: May 23, 2012 12:58 PM

    The players union is such a joke. At every turn they have bluffed and ended up showing the world how weak their position really is.

  64. nineroutsider says: May 23, 2012 12:58 PM

    Some of you think the Union has no case, but how does the league explain the Redskins/Cowboys punishment? The new CBA does not waive the Union’s right to sue for this type of collusion, but of course the league will argue that it does. Lawyers will be getting paid big on this one…

    The league seems to be very brazen in its labor actions, one has to wonder how they have the arrogance to operate the way they do. Eventually they will go down.

    Remembers, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered…

  65. thegreatgabbert says: May 23, 2012 12:59 PM

    Also known as “Mo’s Desperate Clinging To The Last Threads Of Relavence.”.

  66. karlton2 says: May 23, 2012 1:00 PM

    hawkforlife says: May 23, 2012 12:30 PM

    Actually, the NFL did not provide the evidence of collusion until the sanctions were announced against the Redskins and Cowboys. Which is also why this suit may go forward despite the CBA, because the union will argue that the CBA was agreed to without full knowledge of the collusion that took place.

    —————————————————-

    Completely irrelevant. Unless the provision applies only to ‘currently known violations’, which it doesn’t, ALL violations, known or not are waived.

  67. pnthrz1 says: May 23, 2012 1:00 PM

    The lawyers and all the other BS are ruining the offseason.
    I’m to the point where I no longer want read NFL related web sites or watch NFL related news.
    I think I’ll go back to just listening to the pregame on radio and watching the games.

  68. bobwhitequail says: May 23, 2012 1:00 PM

    And so the lawyers get richer. And all that will result is a bunch of paperwork shuffling and taxpayers money spent on courts. And us fans have to endure this crap for who knows how long. What a waste.

  69. nfceastfan says: May 23, 2012 1:00 PM

    It’s got nothing to do with the Redskins or Cowboys, but more to do with the Saints punishment. Much like Jerry and Danny all the NFLPA can do is suck it up and take it. When the collective bargaining agreement was struck the NFLPA had no clue how badly they were outmaneuvered and out thought. Next time the players association might want to think about hiring quality litigators.

  70. therealsmiley says: May 23, 2012 1:03 PM

    Mara asked for it! Hail!!

  71. skinspop102 says: May 23, 2012 1:04 PM

    Congrats Mara, you turkey neck POS, trying to screw two division rivals just effed the entire league.

    UNBELIEVABLE!!!

  72. wabbitslayer says: May 23, 2012 1:04 PM

    Owners just need to admit that the players have been getting screwed for too long. Only fair thing to do is to shut down the league, close all the franchises, and the players will no longer be enslaved and they can then go out like the rest of us and get a job in a factory or McDonald’s or wherever and make the REAL money they truly deserve.

  73. gweez76 says: May 23, 2012 1:05 PM

    Congrats John Mara. You’ve destroyed what you grandfather helped build.

    Because of pettiness.

  74. truthfactory says: May 23, 2012 1:05 PM

    For anyone applauding all these lawsuits, thats even more $$ the NFL and owners have to spend defending themselves….

    Newsflash: They dont pay those bills, they pass along the cost to us fans in the form of higher tickets, concessions, and parking.

    Enjoy…

  75. butthatmakestoomuchsense says: May 23, 2012 1:06 PM

    Even the most brainwashed, pro-owner yahoo has to admit it’s obvious that the owners colluded, and thus cheated the players out of tens of millions of dollars.

    THE OWNERS THEMSELVES ADMITTED IT when they sanctioned the Cowboys and Redskins for “not following the spirit of the rules” and spent more money than they were supposed to when the CBA clearly called for an uncapped year.

    Do you guys know how much three billion dollars is? Picture an envelope with a million dollars in it. Now picture three thousand of those envelopes. That’s what the NFL is looking at paying.

    Nice job, Goodell.

  76. The Shoeman says: May 23, 2012 1:07 PM

    cowboyfan45 says:
    so shoeman, if you went to buy a car and agreed on a price and bought the car and then two years later the dealer said you needed to pay them $2000 more because they decided to set a new price,…would you be irate??
    *******************************************************
    well yeah … but not the case here.

    Cowboys owner Jerry Jones compared the dynamics of the salary cap with using a credit card.

    ”The way you work around the salary cap is you kind of use the credit card to spend money that you won’t be spending in the future,
    ” Jones said Tuesday at the owners meeting. ”So it caused us to do more credit card spending in the future.”
    ______________________________________________

    First of all, is it collusion? Absolutely.

    This cap system punished teams fairly for signing players to bad contracts for the express purpose of making it so everyone competes on a somewhat level playing field.

    Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones were trying to buy their way out of trouble so that they could set themselves up to be in a better position than other teams.

    they got caught .. now they have to stand in the corner.

  77. mavajo says: May 23, 2012 1:08 PM

    I don’t think the general public (i.e., the people posting comments here) quite understand how lawsuits work. Particularly the guy crying that the NFLPA is going to “sue the NFL out of existence.”

    Stupid. Lawsuits are basically the means to enforce civil law. If people stop filing lawasuits, then civil law becomes meaningless, because no one’s obligated to abide by it.

    Lawsuits aren’t always about a money-grab. Often, it’s about injunctive relief — or in other words, the court telling a party that they need to do or stop doing a certain act.

    In this case, it’s probably both. And the NFL has it coming, in my opinion. Forasmuch as one can speculate about a matter that hasn’t yet gone in front of a court, this was pretty clearly collusion on the NFL’s part. The NFLPA’s only real way to seek relief for that wrong is via a lawsuit.

  78. rajbais says: May 23, 2012 1:10 PM

    The NFLPA’s newest fans: Redskins & Cowboys!!!

    Hey!!!

    There’s a reason why they pay everyone so well!!!

  79. safranic03 says: May 23, 2012 1:10 PM

    Wait a minute, a union in breach of contract? Say it ain’t so…

  80. jimw81 says: May 23, 2012 1:11 PM

    anyone see this part of the story,NFLPA went judge shopping.

    The NFLPA filed its collusion complaint in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claiming that it falls under the supervision and oversight of Judge David Doty, who presided over the 1993 settlement of the Reggie White litigation case.

  81. saints25 says: May 23, 2012 1:13 PM

    football in the courtroom…boom!!!! theres no teust at all between owners/NFLPA….Goodell needs to go

  82. ilovefoolsball says: May 23, 2012 1:13 PM

    Years later we’ll look back on the GODdell years with disdain as the most corrupt dictator to ever rule over a sports league.
    The NFL flourishes in spite of him, not because of him.

  83. gbmickey says: May 23, 2012 1:14 PM

    It was posted above in black and white they cannot sue. Regardless what anyone thinks it was signed and agreed upon.

    Some of you act like jones and snyder are leading this charge but in reality they really have nothing to do with it. In the spirit of fair play between owners they tried to take advantage of a loophole in the system because they continually pay way to much for players or failed draft picks and are constantly trying to dig themselves out to field a competitive team. These two owners are attention starved and since they cannot get in the media by having good teams they are relegated trying to 1 up the other owners by cheating the system.

  84. mike83ri says: May 23, 2012 1:15 PM

    How can you quantify a monetary loss that the NFLPA should be reimbursed for? Stupid.

  85. mojosmagic says: May 23, 2012 1:16 PM

    Smith is a problem! Everything is a fight with this guy and the Union should replace him. He even fights over player safety issues and steroid abuse. How does that help his players? Doesn’t a bounty system organized by coaches and rouge players hurt his members? He has a hostile approach to knee and thigh pads which protect his members for God’s sake! There is still minimal drug testing in football because of Smith and the government will end up getting involved which isn’t ideal. Smith didn’t even get a great deal in the new CBA. The guy is a total joke!!!

  86. dyims says: May 23, 2012 1:17 PM

    This seems to be a power play by the Union to try and get back at the NFL and to back off the sanctions against the players in the bountygate saga.

  87. bigdicebuddha says: May 23, 2012 1:19 PM

    Does anybody find all of the Redskins fan funny that are clearly deflecting all of the blame onto Goodell, Mara, whoever else for the fact that they clearly dumped Fat Albert Haynesworth’s worthless salary in the uncapped year?

    Cap, no cap, collusion, whatever… The bottom line is, as long as Dan Snyder is running the Redskins, they will always be terrible.

    HAIL! hahahahahahaha

  88. realitypolice says: May 23, 2012 1:21 PM

    @karlton2 (and many others):

    The law doesn’t work that way. The NFLPA will argue that at the time they agreed to that clause, they did so because the league fraudulently assured them that there had been no collusion, when in fact there had. Thus they signed under false pretenses.

    It would certainly be reasonable to assume (and contrary to popular belief, reason does actually MATTER in court) that they would not have agreed to that if they had not been led to believe AT THAT TIME that there had been no collusion.

    And to all of the chicken littles complaining about the union “trying to ruin the league”, grow up. They’ll wrangle over this for awhile, the league will write a big check, and everything will go on as before.

  89. kacapaco says: May 23, 2012 1:21 PM

    I am for the NFLPA in this case. The league can’t dance around the uncapped season and punish franchises that treated it as it is and deny collusion. The NFLPA played smart and got the league. Now the league has to concede lots of things in secrete.

  90. gpclaw says: May 23, 2012 1:22 PM

    Looks like the NFLPA is trying to be on both sides of the issue. First, players union made a side agreement to allow the league to take the $46M in cap space from the Cowboys and Redskins, and now they are suing because the owners made a side agreement on how much to spend during the uncapped year?

  91. ntrain206 says: May 23, 2012 1:22 PM

    Even if the NFLPA cannot sue, the Justice Department surely can. This is not going to end well for the NFL.

  92. JaminJake says: May 23, 2012 1:23 PM

    hawkforlife says:
    May 23, 2012 12:30 PM

    So why didn’t you file this in 2010 or at the latest in 2011. You knew about it then. What a joke this union is.
    _________________

    I don’t get it. If there was collusion and the Redskins and Cowboys are only being punished now, how could they have filed before?

  93. edenprairieballer says: May 23, 2012 1:24 PM

    Can we talk about the real issues facing the NFL? They are going to make knee and thigh pads mandatory. That is ridiculous!!!!

  94. hendawg21 says: May 23, 2012 1:24 PM

    So wait…let me see if I got this right, the Union the same folks who signed off on the punishment for the boys and skins…are now agreeing that basically those two teams were innocent and now want to argue the case before the courts??? See something is very dirty here…and it starts with DeSmith, Mara, GODdell all 3 need to be fined, fired etc.,

  95. fground says: May 23, 2012 1:24 PM

    funny how the richer people get the more litigious they get.

    Both sides get richer every year but they endlessly argue over the spoils. Must be exasperating for anyone involved who is reasonable and empathetic on any level.

  96. stevem7 says: May 23, 2012 1:25 PM

    Gotta absolutely love it. Goddell and the NFL aren’t denying that they colluded, rather they are claiming the Union agreed not to sue them for collusion. Is there anyone more crooked than Roger Goddell?

  97. JaminJake says: May 23, 2012 1:25 PM

    Look at this way. You can’t have an uncapped year and be told not to have an uncapped year. Punishing teams for violating the “spirit of the rule” makes no sense. While you might not like the NFLPA, they are doing the right thing in this instance by trying to expose this.

  98. jdandcoke says: May 23, 2012 1:26 PM

    basically, for this case to have any real weight, jones and snyder will both have to testify that they knew that this “secret” cap existed. if they do that, they will get nothing from the rest of the league for as long as they own their respective teams.

  99. 7ransponder says: May 23, 2012 1:27 PM

    Although I understand the case here and am tending to side with the NFLPA, for a union that represents millionaires, they sure are whiny.

  100. Herb Deluxe says: May 23, 2012 1:27 PM

    That sound you hear is the start of the death throes of the Golden Goose. God help you, Roger Goodell.

  101. walkingtalking1 says: May 23, 2012 1:28 PM

    Demaurice looks like a gangsta to me! I think he’s acting like one too.

  102. thcnote says: May 23, 2012 1:29 PM

    So once again Drew Brees has sued his owner and he wonders why he doesn’t have a long term deal yet. Please make him play under the tag.

  103. jm91rs says: May 23, 2012 1:31 PM

    This sport (both the Players Association and the owners) is completely dysfunctional. Baseball was once on top of the sporting world and things like this brought it down to where it is now.

    I’m not predicting a similar fall for football, but all of the infighting from people that should be doing everything they can for the good of the game is not going to help.

    I can’t remember Tagliabue or Gene Upshaw’s name getting mentioned more than a few times a year, all we hear about now is Goodell and De Smith. The focus of any sport should be the games themselves, this is getting out of hand.

  104. lucksmn says: May 23, 2012 1:32 PM

    How ironic it would be if this is based on the penalty two OWNERS are getting from the NFL.

  105. karlton2 says: May 23, 2012 1:38 PM

    realitypolice says:
    May 23, 2012 1:21 PM
    @karlton2 (and many others):

    The law doesn’t work that way. The NFLPA will argue that at the time they agreed to that clause, they did so because the league fraudulently assured them that there had been no collusion, when in fact there had. Thus they signed under false pretenses.

    It would certainly be reasonable to assume (and contrary to popular belief, reason does actually MATTER in court) that they would not have agreed to that if they had not been led to believe AT THAT TIME that there had been no collusion.
    ————————————————–
    That doesn’t matter. The CBA has a clause indicating that it is a full and complete incorporation of any previous representation, agreement, etc., and that parol evidence will prevent them from using that exact argument.

    The bottom line is that when they agreed to the CBA, they were risking losing a chance to pursue collusion. The NFL won this round, plain an simple. The only people left who can have a grievance is the owners who were grieved (Jones/Snyder).

  106. romosexualtendencies says: May 23, 2012 1:38 PM

    DeMaurice Smith is a joke, does he have any idea what he is doing? He signs of on the punishment but then sues for it?

    CMON MAN!

  107. phearfactor says: May 23, 2012 1:38 PM

    “dismissed all claims, known or unknown, whether pending or not.”

    That should include the bounty program then.

  108. dhockster1015 says: May 23, 2012 1:41 PM

    There was no collusion. The league approved all contracts during the uncapped year, even those that would have put teams over the “secret” salary cap.

    When the league went to penalize the teams that went against what the league wanted, they simply moved the salary cap dollars from the penalized teams to the non-penalized teams so there was no overall reduction in the current salary cap. The union agreed to this.

    I think it will be very hard for the players to prove how many other teams would have violated the secret cap since everyone knew what the Cowboys and Redskins were doing and yet still elected not to proceed in the same manner.

  109. JaminJake says: May 23, 2012 1:42 PM

    The NFL has taken off a bigger bite than they can handle. They will now be involved in multiple lawsuits and appeals. All that it takes is a nosy member of Congress to rear their nose into this pile of stinky cheese. As for those who say the new CBA bans such a suit, like that has stopped law suits before. Judges are there to interpret the laws, and like it or not, inject their view on the rules. If this judges feels something in this case warrants superseding the CBA, he won’t hesitate. The biggest damage done isn’t in the courtroom but at the media end. Goodell looks like he is cleaning up the league. Most people would agree that is good. The problems arise when you become Judge Dredd. Having himself as Judge, Jury, and Executioner will bring doubt to the integrity of his rulings. You punish the Saints, yet you delay on the release of evidence. Punish a team for overspending in an uncapped year? The more unanswered questions you create, the more people want to know. Do that enough and you’ll have people at the door. Looks like Goodell has received his wish.

  110. fatcamper says: May 23, 2012 1:50 PM

    The NFLPA has become Dan and Jerry’s puppet on this one. Once they do the dirty work Dan and Jerry will come sniffing for their piece of the damages in a second suit.

    Well-played Commish.

  111. alphaq2 says: May 23, 2012 1:54 PM

    Duress means that you are being forced to participate in some illegal activity against your will. Either sign off or the sallary cap shrinks says Goddell and Mara to D.Smith in some dimly lit back room…Go for it NFLPA!

  112. jgedgar70 says: May 23, 2012 1:56 PM

    The “colluded” salary cap was $123 million? I thought it was $60 million.

    What? You say it was only the Panthers that capped their payroll at $60 million?

    Damn, Jerry WAS being cheap.

    Well, at least we got rid of the village idiot (Fox) and got a good QB out of it…

  113. maverick2560 says: May 23, 2012 1:56 PM

    First year of law school our prof. insisted that one cannot waive a cause of action that results from the illegal actions of a party. It is a matter of public policy.Imagine the precedent in labor law if this is permitted. “although we knew the products our employee was using were certain to cause his death……he signed a release absolving us from all liabilities known and unknown”.

  114. JaminJake says: May 23, 2012 1:57 PM

    dhockster1015 says:
    May 23, 2012 1:41 PM
    There was no collusion. The league approved all contracts during the uncapped year, even those that would have put teams over the “secret” salary cap.

    When the league went to penalize the teams that went against what the league wanted, they simply moved the salary cap dollars from the penalized teams to the non-penalized teams so there was no overall reduction in the current salary cap. The union agreed to this.

    I think it will be very hard for the players to prove how many other teams would have violated the secret cap since everyone knew what the Cowboys and Redskins were doing and yet still elected not to proceed in the same manner.

    __________________________

    Doesn’t answer how you can violate spending in an uncapped year.

  115. wretchu says: May 23, 2012 1:58 PM

    karlton2 says: May 23, 2012 1:38 PM
    realitypolice says:
    May 23, 2012 1:21 PM
    @karlton2 (and many others):

    The law doesn’t work that way. The NFLPA will argue that at the time they agreed to that clause, they did so because the league fraudulently assured them that there had been no collusion, when in fact there had. Thus they signed under false pretenses.

    It would certainly be reasonable to assume (and contrary to popular belief, reason does actually MATTER in court) that they would not have agreed to that if they had not been led to believe AT THAT TIME that there had been no collusion.
    ————————————————–
    That doesn’t matter. The CBA has a clause indicating that it is a full and complete incorporation of any previous representation, agreement, etc., and that parol evidence will prevent them from using that exact argument.

    The bottom line is that when they agreed to the CBA, they were risking losing a chance to pursue collusion. The NFL won this round, plain an simple. The only people left who can have a grievance is the owners who were grieved (Jones/Snyder).

    ===

    That’s called bad faith. This is very easy to challenge at minimum. The NFL can’t have the PA sign an agreement knowing full well that they had committed collusion. It’s an unconscionable contract. “Iron-clad” contracts are not always such.

  116. nfceastfan says: May 23, 2012 2:03 PM

    lucksmn says: May 23, 2012 1:32 PM

    How ironic it would be if this is based on the penalty two OWNERS are getting from the NFL.

    ——————————————————-
    More ironic is 2 teams filed suits, and lost, for something they are now being sued for. Is it starting to sink in why Jones and Snyder dropped everything so fast? Comical

  117. realitypolice says: May 23, 2012 2:04 PM

    @karlton2:

    Of course it matters. Stop getting hung up on what the CBA clause says or doesn’t say.

    A contract signed upon fraudulent assurances by either side is not valid.

    If the union can prove that the league was concealing evidence and/or lying in response to direct inquiries about collusion made by the union to the league, than they could have signed away the rights to their first born child and it doesn’t matter.

    If I sell you a car that I KNOW has a bad transmission, and you specifically ask me if it has a bad transmission, and I say specifically that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the transmission, nothing that happens after that is legally binding.

    You simply cannot induce someone to sign a contract by lying to them. Yes, it happens all the time, but if you have the resources and time to take it to court, and you can prove you were directly lied to, you’ll win.

    And the union has all of the time, money, and resources it needs.

  118. pastabelly says: May 23, 2012 2:06 PM

    The NFL did not suppress salaries or collude to reduce compensation and that’s not why Washington and Dallas were penalized. The NFL owners agreed that none of them would engage in the frontloading of contracts where bonuses were essentially labled as current year compensation because doing so would give these teams an unfair advantage when the cap returned. The league and other teams (29 requested Goodell to go after Dallas and Washington) would have been okay if Washington and Dallas spent as much as they did as long as they called it what it was – bonuses that should be allocated among all years of the contract. The league warned all teams against these bogus contract structures that front ended bonuses and masked them as current compensation.

  119. NOLA in Focus says: May 23, 2012 2:09 PM

    The League contends amnesty occurred upon signing the new CBA……… unless we are talking about New Orleans Saints players and coaches’ amnesty.

  120. billzgobowlin says: May 23, 2012 2:11 PM

    Collusion against who? A union that decertified? Pointless argument.

  121. tmurphy88 says: May 23, 2012 2:16 PM

    Stop with the lawsuits already. Get on with playing football

  122. solomon151 says: May 23, 2012 2:20 PM

    gbmickey says:
    May 23, 2012 1:14 PM
    It was posted above in black and white they cannot sue. Regardless what anyone thinks it was signed and agreed upon.

    Some of you act like jones and snyder are leading this charge but in reality they really have nothing to do with it. In the spirit of fair play between owners they tried to take advantage of a loophole in the system because they continually pay way to much for players or failed draft picks and are constantly trying to dig themselves out to field a competitive team. These two owners are attention starved and since they cannot get in the media by having good teams they are relegated trying to 1 up the other owners by cheating the system.
    ————————————————–

    Dude, What are you talking about?? How did they try to one up the other owners??? What system was they trying to take advantage of?? If there isnt a posted speed limit on the road how can you say i was speeding?? So, if there wasnt a salary cap, how did they try to take advantage??? And maybe you dont know anything about business, But attention is everything. And not being able to feild a goodteam. I think the boys have won a few division titles in the past decade. But, I guess your telling me the only way you can be a good team is if you win the superbowl.. So, in that, that means there is only one good team in the NFL per year, SMH…..

  123. daysend564 says: May 23, 2012 2:25 PM

    If all that comes of this is that Mara has to step down as the Chairman of the Competition Committe, I’ll consider it a win.

  124. belichickrulz says: May 23, 2012 2:30 PM

    I can’t take another off-season of Billionaires vs. Millionaires. They’re all making more money that virtually any of their fans, and yet all they do is fight over money. I’ve been a fan of the NFL for over 40 years, but this league makes me sick.

  125. TSizzleBallSoHard says: May 23, 2012 2:31 PM

    Goodell and Demaurice Smith both need to just retire. The two of them combined are going to ruin the game of football.

  126. realdealsteel says: May 23, 2012 2:32 PM

    The NFL is in trouble on this one. The new collective bargaining agreement does NOT apply to a period where there was no collective bargaining agreement. And Adolph Goodall admitted there was an agreement (collusion) amoungst the owners. If he had just left the Cowboys and Redskins alone, this would have all went away.

    The NFL is going to lose this lawsuit to the NFLPA. And the only two owners not named in the lawsuit are Snyder and Jones.

    Rodger, your in over your head messing with Jones and Snyder. They were doing big buisness things while you were still in the mail room.

    NFLPA is going to win this lawsuit very easily.

  127. tiger2471 says: May 23, 2012 2:34 PM

    What is so funny is that the NFL claims the current CBA prohibits such a lawsuit but yet they suspend guys for a year for “bounty gate” under the current CBA even though their actions occurred before the new CBA. It seems it’s OK if the NFL uses it but no one else can, but that will not be the case. The NFL is backed in a corner on this deal and I believe they will drop the current salary cap penalties because they are fighting more lawsuits than they can handle and it serves them right. No matter what type of entity you are within the US you should be subject to federal scrutiny if you handle your business this way and you should pay for such actions.

  128. leksington says: May 23, 2012 2:34 PM

    So many people don’t get it.

    The Redskins and Cowboys were NOT penalized for spending too much money. They were penalized for the shady way they structured their deals.

    The NFLPA is not going to be able to point to the ‘skins and ‘boys and say that is proof of an unwritten salary cap number.

    TL;DR Collusion regarding salaries: yes. Proof of a secret salary cap number: no.

  129. leksington says: May 23, 2012 2:43 PM

    “What system was they trying to take advantage of?? If there isnt a posted speed limit on the road how can you say i was speeding?? So, if there wasnt a salary cap, how did they try to take advantage?”

    —————————————————-

    If they had merely spent tons of money in the uncapped year there would have been no problem. Problems arose when they used the uncapped year to effect future capped years. Giving bonuses that weren’t prorated into the future.

    Just because there wasn’t a posted speed limit doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be repercussions for driving drunk.

  130. axespray says: May 23, 2012 2:51 PM

    nfc east is annoying…

  131. cowboyhater says: May 23, 2012 3:02 PM

    Mara, you should have just kept your big mouth shut and accepted the payouts to the ridiculous contracts that the skins created during the Vinny Cerrato era. If anyone is to blame, it’s this guy. He had made some of the most bone headed moves, and created some of most idiotic player contracts, that he should be the one everyone needs to be angry at. Dan Snyder is an owner that just wants to win, and had trust that this guy was doing to the right thing for the skins organization. Vinny, your legacy for the most incompetent GM continues to live on.

  132. mvp43 says: May 23, 2012 3:16 PM

    FU NFL and NFLPA

  133. daysend564 says: May 23, 2012 3:18 PM

    cowboyhater says:
    Vinny, your legacy for the most incompetent GM continues to live on.
    ======================
    Worse than Jerry Jones? Worse than Matt Millen?

  134. hawkforlife says: May 23, 2012 3:21 PM

    To all that responded to my comment; they could have filed before because everyone in the League, the press and the players knew there were restrictions agreed to by the teams at the time, 2010.

    Just because now two teams who decided to play fast with the agreement lose an appeal the NFLPA says we just NOW found out about it.

    To think that all the owners, GMs, League office people and agents kept all this quiet for 2 1/2 years is laughable. That group can’t even keep quiet about a single drug test at the combine for crying out loud.

    Even the CIA couldn’t keep that secret.

  135. bigassbiscuit says: May 23, 2012 3:23 PM

    What does the picture of a pug have to do with the article?

  136. cowboyhater says: May 23, 2012 3:31 PM

    daysend564 says: May 23, 2012 3:18 PM

    cowboyhater says:
    Vinny, your legacy for the most incompetent GM continues to live on.
    ======================
    Worse than Jerry Jones? Worse than Matt Millen?

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Yep

  137. tetsuyaryuji says: May 23, 2012 3:37 PM

    Redskins and Cowboys are being punished because they were told not to abuse the uncapped year to make it so they can get better players and still be under the cap when it returns. They gave out bigger contracts for the year 2010 abusing an uncapped year to give themselves and advantage when the cap is back. Call it what you want, but I 100% back Gooddell on this one and am completely sick of the NFLPA.. they need a new person leading them, they look more and more pathetic with every lawsuit attempt they make and as we all know, they aren’t winning any of them..

  138. gpclaw says: May 23, 2012 4:00 PM

    kacapaco says:
    May 23, 2012 1:21 PM
    I am for the NFLPA in this case. The league can’t dance around the uncapped season and punish franchises that treated it as it is and deny collusion.
    ————————————————-

    The league had to go to the NFLPA for approval, prior to imposing punishment on the Redskins and Cowboys.

  139. tonyromoisterrible says: May 23, 2012 4:06 PM

    Dee smith is the quintessential idiot.

  140. richc111 says: May 23, 2012 4:22 PM

    You know what should happen. The Fans should get a lawyer to represent them. “When the rules are broken in a way that hurts the game, we have an obligation to act” How is what they are talking hurting the game? There has got to be a some dirt bag firm out there willing to take on the task for all the fans.

  141. tominma says: May 23, 2012 4:26 PM

    First the union signs off on a new agreement that specifically gives the Commissioner the power to discipline players. With the revelation of the outrageous “bounty gate”, the Commissioner disciplines the players and team. And the union cries foul!

    Then having signed off on any claims, known or unknown, the union is now suing—again— charging collusion in an uncapped year! Did the players think that the long snappers were all of a sudden going to make $2M per year???

    This version of the NFLPA sure looks like the dont like the agreement that they were very careful to read before signing!! Im a union guy 100%– and this smells.

  142. cslowe says: May 23, 2012 4:36 PM

    Sue sue sue …”cant waot” for the season the season to start so all this irrelevance between bollionares and millionares goes to the wayside.

  143. gingerkid2000 says: May 23, 2012 4:52 PM

    Suing has become the legal equivalent of stomping your feet & holding your breath until your face turns blue. Except in Jerry Jones case it’s not a metaphor.

  144. derekjetersmansion says: May 23, 2012 6:55 PM

    The whole point of the uncapped year was to dump big contracts, like Haynesworth. Why the PA didn’t understand that is beyond me. Ironically, if there actually was a ‘secret salary cap’, teams would have more cap space now.

    The only fair thing about the cap penalty is the $36 million is the likely cap number for Haynesworth and Hall.

    Frankly, the only collusion here was the owners’ paying EVERYONE in 2010, like all of the overpaid Jets (Faneca, Richardson)

    People don’t remember that there weren’t a lot of free agents in 2010, but the ones that were free got PAID.

  145. bigblackanvil says: May 24, 2012 7:56 AM

    Even if the case is dismissed……I see congress getting involved at some point. Too much money at stake.

  146. jacksprat57 says: May 24, 2012 11:55 PM

    Karlton2, my guess is that the NFLPA will argue that the provisions which you cite are invalid because they are against the public interest. Given the public nature of what was done and its transparency, I expect that the suit will be allowed to proceed.

    When it goes to trial, they will summon Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, neither of whom will perjure themselves. If they invoke the 5th, then even the corrupt horse turds in Congress will have to act.

    Somebody else worried allowed that Jones and Snyder should be exempted. They needn’t be. If the NFLPA prevails, their own lawsuit would be a slam dunk. It would also include treble damages.

    The spirit of Al Davis rides again.

  147. truthserum4u says: May 25, 2012 10:40 AM

    realitypolice says:May 23, 2012 12:21 PM

    Brilliant.

    The best way to prove the existence of a secret salary cap was to allow the league to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys for violating it.

    By signing off on the punishment, the NFLPA set in stone the most significant piece of evidence it needed to prove collusion.

    The NFL has been badly outmaneuvered and looks ridiculous.
    —————————————————–

    Actually, by getting the NFLPA to agree to the punishments the league’s disciplinary action of the Skins & Boys cannot be considered a current act collusion. Brilliant on the NFL’s part.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    realitypolice says:May 23, 2012 1:21 PM

    The NFLPA will argue that at the time they agreed to that clause, they did so because the league fraudulently assured them that there had been no collusion, when in fact there had. Thus they signed under false pretenses.

    …they would not have agreed to that if they had not been led to believe AT THAT TIME that there had been no collusion.

    realitypolice says:May 23, 2012 2:04 PM

    A contract signed upon fraudulent assurances by either side is not valid.

    If the union can prove that the league was concealing evidence and/or lying in response to direct inquiries about collusion made by the union to the league, than they could have signed away the rights to their first born child and it doesn’t matter.

    You simply cannot induce someone to sign a contract by lying to them.

    ———————————————-
    The league fraudulently assured them that there had been no collusion?

    A contract signed upon fraudulent assurances by either side is not valid?

    Concealing evidence and/or lying in response to direct inquiries about collusion made by the union to the league?

    Where are you getting this stuff from? At what point did the league assure the union it never colluded? There is no evidence of this. And your car analogy is not apples to apples; selling something and settling a dispute are not the same thing.

    The NFLPA signed away their rights to a collusion law suite on two different documents – the CBA & the SSA. The SSA clearly states “The parties stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not”. In agreeing with the terms of the new CBA the NFLPA released claims of the unknown. They did that, well…knowingly.

  148. sullijo1 says: May 28, 2012 1:08 PM

    Unions are awesome!………wait, nevermind.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!