It’s one thing to have a stone face in front of your advertisers. It’s another to keep walking your walk and isolate the peeps that are paying them.

This is the age of the internet, Rog. Pony up, cause we’re ALL talking about you.

purplegreenandgold says: Jun 7, 2012 3:37 PM

it’s intuitively obvious to the even most casual observer that no amount of evidence will convince you that their innocent of a *BOUNTY
program…also does anyone wonder why late friday is information leak day for roger goodell
==============================
Yes, I questioned the “evidence” being released on late Friday! It seemed a bit convenient for Goodell.
I also questioned your use of the word “their” as opposed to “they’re”! Must be a Nawleans thing.
===================================
not a Nawleans thing … just a simple error however did live there from 88/92 during DOME PATROL era due to job transfer

Does anyone else think it’s odd the first chance players get to defense themselves is at an appeal?

————————————————————————————————————

It will be the second chance they had to defend themselves; the first would’ve been the meetings with Goodell that they passed on.

I wouldn’t think you’d need to be a labor law specialist to make this argument. However, if my position is wrong, please tell me so that I learn something today. I need CLEs by June 30.

@musicman495 – the Constitution prevents the government from denying due process. A private business can fire or suspend whoever they want (here, subject to the procedures of the CBA) without violating the Constitution.

A CBA negotiated at arm’s-length between the NFLPA and the League is hardly the same thing as the typical adhesion contracts in most consumer transactions

I see that you are an attorney evidently well versed in labor law. My thought is that reasonable evidence of pay for performance, lying to investigators for three years, audios, and public apologies for these programs by administrative staff members along with orders to cease and desist by the NFL provides Goodell solid grounds to terminate, suspend and/or fine named players as he deems relative. Am I right or wrong? further, why would a court even touch this unless it was a violation of civil liberties or discrimination of some sort? I feel this case would be dismissed immediately. Your opinion please Sir.

…It’s not to say that when there is a CBA you cannot seek the relief of the court, but I think your comment tends to suggest that there is not a large deference to discipline, grievance, and arbitration provisions in a CBA. In my experience as a labor/employment lawyer, it is exactly the opposite.
————————–
Lawyer or not, no CBA is a higher authority than the U.S. Constitution. I am sure no judge would insert himself or herself into a CBA disagreement over some on-the-field or off-the-field action about which there is no dispute of fact – the player was penalized for hitting the QB after the whistle, the player was convicted of drunk driving, etc. But if someone can be suspended for a year without pay for a year and have his career ruined, without so much as seeing the evidence against him, all because of a CBA, then we truly have moved to Cuba.

I can’t wait for Saints fans to see the evidence and still deny it. They are the football equivalent of birthers and 9/11 truthers – no amount of evidence will ever convince them that they’re wrong.
———————————————-
And I cannot wait for those who think that America was built on the proposition that “where there’s smoke there’s fire” to learn that there IS no evidence of a Saints “pay to injure” system, except for the tainted word of a former player or staff member with an axe to grind, which is what some of us have been saying since March. All I know is that the more that comes out about this case, the weaker the Commissar’s position.

There is a long list of precedents in terms of interpreting CBAs and interjecting the court, but generally speaking you have to live with what you negotiate. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but I don’t think the idea that the arbitration clause of a CBA runs contrary to public policy is a strong argument which is going to win you a long-term injunction.

It’s not to say that when there is a CBA you cannot seek the relief of the court, but I think your comment tends to suggest that there is not a large deference to discipline, grievance, and arbitration provisions in a CBA. In my experience as a labor/employment lawyer, it is exactly the opposite.

This is the purpose of our wonderful judicial system. Even though you might agree to terms (either knowingly or unknowingly), the law protects us from other parties taking advantage of certain terms in a contract. Be happy. It’s what separates us from Yemen where if you don’t agree to pay, you might lose a hand.

“In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing.”

Article 46, Section 2(f)(ii)

it’s intuitively obvious to the even most casual observer that no amount of evidence will convince you that their innocent of a *BOUNTY
program…also does anyone wonder why late friday is information leak day for roger goodell
==============================
Yes, I questioned the “evidence” being released on late Friday! It seemed a bit convenient for Goodell.
I also questioned your use of the word “their” as opposed to “they’re”! Must be a Nawleans thing.

So either the NFL has proof or there is some vast conspiracy orchestrated by the NFL to screw over the Saints (coincidentally the same team Viking conspiracy theorists thought the NFL rigged games in favor of for some sort of Katrina reparations or something).

What does the NFL stand to gain from such a conspiracy? Is it to puff out their chests to show how they protect players in their lawsuit against former players who allegedly didn’t know football was dangerous? Maybe it’ll take the shine off of marquee games on the Saints schedule against the Packers, Broncos, Giants, or the playoff rematch against the 49ers. What’s the league’s motivation for “making stuff up.”

Using Occam’s razor and some common sense, it seems far more likely that a bounty program was going on.

I can’t wait for Saints fans to see the evidence and still deny it. They are the football equivalent of birthers and 9/11 truthers – no amount of evidence will ever convince them that they’re wrong.
===================================
it’s intuitively obvious to the even most casual observer that no amount of evidence will convince you that their innocent of a *BOUNTY
program…also does anyone wonder why late friday is information leak day for roger goodell

As an attorney, “truth” is a defense to defamation. However, the burden to prove “truth” is on Goodell not Vilma. If Goodell can’t prove that Vilma paid actual money to another player, Vilma could very well win his defamation suit. As an NFL fan, you should hope that Vilma recovers a giant judgment against Goodell. If so, Goodell might stop being so blase about doling out these huge crippling punishments that do NOTHING but infuriate fans and rob money from players.

And the steelers voted against the CBA for that very reason, although most posters called them stupid. Sorry, had to get that in.

and YOU sir/madam are the BIGGEST of tools. had you bothered to actually research your ‘FACTS’ you would know what you’re spewing is utter bs. first off, i’m sure ALL of the members of the NFLPA are just whining in their cereal because they’re getting no sympathy from you. second, here’s how the negotiations went down (google it), the PLAYERS were told rodgerdodger was going to get fully unlimited, autonomous power as representative of the owners. this was a point they were NOT going to negotiate. PERIOD. pick something else they were told. so to blame the players for ‘agreeing’ is totally WRONG. it didn’t take the NFLPA AND the PLAYERS long to know they were hosed by the owners. they wanted the season to start, they wanted to make a living. most of the players don’t make ‘MILLIONS’ of dollars a year. a very high percentage make the league minimum (google it) based on a 5 year career expectation (average) figure out how long YOU could live on that.

The whole idea that “you agreed to it, you’re bound by it, you signed it, you should have been more careful”, etc., etc., is a misnomer and not well-grounded in the law. The law is full of safeguards to protect parties to a contract from being taken advantage of.