Skip to content

Report: Vilma has no settlement offer

Jonathan Vilma Portrait Shoot Getty Images

It’s not surprising that a controversy mired in semantics has spawned settlement talks that quickly have become mired in semantics.

In response to an ESPN.com report that the NFL has offered Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma a deal that would drop his one-year suspension to an eight-game ban in exchange for a dismissal of his lawsuits against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell, Steve Wyche of the league-owned media operation reports that the league “has made no settlement offer” to Vilma.

It’s likely a potato-potahto situation.  Even if no formal offer has been made, it’s entirely possible that the lawyers have made it clear that such an outcome would be available, if Vilma would accept it.  That common approach provides plausible deniability where, in a case like this one, someone blabs about the non-offer offer.

The fact that Vilma and/or someone close to him spilled the beans means that the offer may not be available any longer.  It also means that Vilma and/or someone close to him likely doesn’t care, because Vilma has never said or done anything to suggest he’ll accept even an eight-play suspension.

The league needs to throw water on this one quickly because the initial reaction has been that the NFL is showing weakness.  And that’s what the league apparently has done, via the media conglomerate that the league owns.

Permalink 27 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
27 Responses to “Report: Vilma has no settlement offer”
  1. cakemixa says: Aug 6, 2012 8:25 AM

    Wyche is a obviously a puppet for the NFL. What credibility does he have, again? I’ll trust Werdscheftenson over this random scrub.

  2. esoteric951 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:31 AM

    i don’t blame the saints for cheating against the vikings, i blame the refs for missing such obvious calls….alot more then just the missed late hits….how about the first down that was given to them as he fumbled the ball in mid air and while he regained possession the ball failed to pass the first down marker….how about that catch that bounced off the ground but the cameras were “inconclusive” the fix was in on that game

  3. purplegreenandgold says: Aug 6, 2012 8:33 AM

    if the report is out there then that what it is

  4. godofwine330 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:33 AM

    The league was way off base from the start. A pay for performance system is not a bounty/pay to injure system. Gregg Williams may have said, “Hit him in the head because he has had concussions,” but saying that and the players paying for INTs and sacks and things is completely different. It may be a technicality, but they have no concrete proof to say otherwise. Hell, the Saints weren’t even in the top half of the league in penalties, late hits or otherwise.

  5. csmit44 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:33 AM

    What the hell are you doing Roger?

  6. sdisme says: Aug 6, 2012 8:43 AM

    Peter King said this on the “non-deal”

    I’d heard the NFL also wanted Vilma to admit some culpability in the case, but that he’s steadfast against that — as are the other three players who’ve been suspended.

  7. ninefingers9 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:44 AM

    WOW is Goodell guilty and scared! He stepped in a huge pile of it with this one…and I hope Vilma makes him pay!

  8. stairwayto7 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:49 AM

    Is ESPN lying? If no deal is offered, I want to see what they say about their bogus reporting!

  9. thefirstsmilergrogan says: Aug 6, 2012 8:49 AM

    At the HOF ceremony Goodell was trying to sell as fact the dubious information he says distinguished pay for performance from pay to injure.

    Unless they have been hiding a golden smoking gun, even more dubious, the league surely doesn’t want a judge (or the media and public) to look at their steaming pile of “evidence”.

    Believe me, I’m no saints fan. They eliminated the eagles a couple times, so making them weaker doesn’t bother me per se, but

    Goodell: please don’t piss on our heads and try to keep telling us its raining…..

  10. hail74 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:52 AM

    Saw this on tv @ 7am and only now it gets repoted. Wyche said no offer made but doesnt mean one wouldnt be coming because the two parties are under court order to attempt settlement

  11. sportfanz says: Aug 6, 2012 8:53 AM

    Goodell is just looking out for the best interest of the game…that is what the owners pay him to do… Get a clue! Starting to have a little respect for the saints coach, at least he is taking it like a man.

  12. tv426 says: Aug 6, 2012 8:58 AM

    How the hell did the Saints “cheat”?? Because they hit hard? Lots of teams hit hard! Does that mean they are “cheating”? The Saints had the 2nd fewest personal foul penalties in the NFL during the “bounty period”. They didn’t cheat, they just legally beat the crap out of people – just like every other team in the NFL tries to do.

    As far as the “compensation” – 1. all teams do that and have always done that. Ask any retired player and they will tell you that. 2. those are tiny incentives no different than a helmet sticker in college. The average NFL player makes $1 mil a year. Getting $1k for a big LEGAL hit is 0.000001% of their annual salary. To put that in perspective if you make $50k per year that would be like someone giving you a nickle!!!

    Do you REALLY think you’d be highly motivated at work to get a nickle from your boss?? Really????

  13. patriotsdefense says: Aug 6, 2012 9:01 AM

    For all we know Villma’s side leaked the story to gain momentum, just like when on side says a contract negotiation is close to put pressure on the otherside.

  14. christopher525 says: Aug 6, 2012 9:02 AM

    It’s not at all possible that an offer was suggested as a negotiation, hoping to kill this before the season starts so the focus can remain on the games and not a courtroom drama?

  15. exibitsman says: Aug 6, 2012 9:05 AM

    Vilma is guilty he should admit he was the leader of group of jerks. I think. Brees was paying the defense players for their illegal hits

  16. RedStateDave says: Aug 6, 2012 9:13 AM

    So nobody thinks the fact that the HEAD COACH agrees this was going on and has accepted the responsibility like a man means the league actually is right? What about the defensive coordinator that also agreed it was going on? What about the owner, who’s been fined millions? He didn’t threaten a lawsuit. Vilma is a jerk, you idiots supporting him and whining about his punishment are jerks and all of you need to get over it.

  17. skoobyfl says: Aug 6, 2012 9:14 AM

    I call shenanigans.

  18. somekat says: Aug 6, 2012 9:16 AM

    Why do i keep seeing stuff like “no smoking gun” and “no concrete evidence” and other bull like that? This is not, nor has it ever been a criminal case. Vilma is not going to jail. Being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not something that is needed here. Per the terms of the CBA, this for all intents and purposes is a civil case.

    In a civil case, the verdict is decided by the judge, according to a proponderance of the evidence.NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In this case, since the players AGREED to it, Goodell is the judge. If after HE looks at it, he feels they are guilty, they are guilty.

    Honestly, at this point, it doesn’t even matter if they did it or not. If Vilma is that butt hurt over it, he should go talk to Brees and the other player reps about how they took such a terrible deal (the answer is the same as always “well, they threw us a lot of cash!!”

  19. prestigious1 says: Aug 6, 2012 9:34 AM

    Rodger shoul double the suspension after this lawsuit fails.

  20. jenniferxxx says: Aug 6, 2012 9:34 AM

    Saints fans are great. There’s no story they won’t believe … unless it’s true … they won’t fall for that one.

  21. godofwine330 says: Aug 6, 2012 9:37 AM

    I cosign tv426. When you look at personal fouls during the bounty period the Saints are 31st, as in the second fewest, and Goodell is trying to sell us and the rest of the world that there was a bounty going on during this period. Get real.

    Pay for performance isn’t a bounty. Almost every team had a pay for performance set up. They probably don’t now, but they did.

  22. electionconfidential says: Aug 6, 2012 9:39 AM

    Vilma is suing the “league”. What happens is that everyone gets into court and the judge starts by determining who has the right to do what… We then re-visit the hypocrisy over whether the NFL is one business or 32 businesses… That’s what the NFL doesn’t want.

  23. macbull says: Aug 6, 2012 9:57 AM

    IMO, it’s not an accident that the information about a reduction in “sentence” was offered to Vilma by Roger Goodell/the NFL…became public during the early morning hours on a Monday.

    If Vilma were going to accept the offer, it would not matter to Goodell and the NFL if the information were made public.

    But if Vilma has no intention of accepting the NFL’s offer, why not make the offer public?

    Vilma’s reputation is tarnished whether he is suspended for one game or one season. At this point, the Star Caps route would be a better route for Vilma than admitting to a lie and agreeing to a suspension of any length.

  24. michiganhockey11 says: Aug 6, 2012 10:47 AM

    If there’s even any remote possiblity of them settling with Vilma, their actually evidence against him has to be diddly-squat. They wish they had squat.

  25. cheers4ablumpkin says: Aug 6, 2012 11:01 AM

    Just let the man play football.

  26. footballchic777 says: Aug 6, 2012 11:09 AM

    Goodell needs to suck it up and either say…..”Here is all the evidence” and show it is irrefutable, or say “I made a mistake with the way I have handled this”, and write off suspensions.

  27. contrasuxbalz says: Aug 6, 2012 3:11 PM

    Hell yeah there is no deal! Goodell is in the right. The Saints cheated and are getting what they deserve just as anyone who cheats should get.

Leave a Reply

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