Comments on: Notes from the Mike Cerullo sworn statement

By: miles58a

miles58a — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:07:28 +0000

In that sworn affidavit, Williams admitted he had a pay-for-performance pool funded by Saints players, admitted he knew the pool violated league rules, and admitted he misled the NFL when he was first questioned about it in 2010. Even in that confession, however, Williams said he never encouraged players to inflict injuries or commit penalties. But in talks with the league, he has apparently pointed the finger at Vilma
___________________________________
This is part of the statment that was reported

So what part do y’all think Williams is telling the truth about He never encouraged players to inflict injuries or commit penalties or is he lying about this part but telling the truth about everything else

By: dickmac

dickmac — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:02:50 +0000

“The Saints never should have let Cerullo leave without ensuring that he wouldn’t be able to blab later” – Does this mean “put out a contract on him”?????

By: turvalon

turvalon — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:31:12 +0000

wiley16350 says:

I could add that people are siting Cerullo’s firing as motive and reason he would lie. However, that is all fine and dandy in respect to the team but what does that have to do with these individual players? You have to come up with a rationale of why he would have a vandetta against these players and involve them in his attempt to get back at the team? You have to connect all the dots, not just throw out theories for certain aspects of the case and call it settled.

You are looking at it incorrectly. You have to look at the total effect which is the head coach gone for the year, GM gone for 8 games, Assistant Head Coach for 6 games, Will Smith for 4 games and Vilma for the year.

I’d say that if he was trying to get back at the Saints, mission accomplished. They players were just icing on the cake.

By: wiley16350

wiley16350 — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:55:07 +0000

Doesn’t the NFL sell photos of these big hits?
__________________________________
I don’t know, I’ve never bought one. I’ve never even looked to buy photos from the NFL. But that has nothing to do with the argument. Just because there is a big hit doesn’t mean there was an injury. They’re not celebrating an injury or encouraging players to injure others even if they did sell those types of photos. Just put yourself into the situation, if it happened to you would you really be happy to know that you sustained an injury that keeps you off the field for any length of time because there was extra money and incentive on the line. I’m pretty sure that the majority of people wouldn’t like for that to happen to them. But the NFL’s primary concern is lawsuits, so they can’t have that type of stuff going on so they had to deal with it to get the message across. The only way these players are in the right is if Cerullo is lying and he made the stuff up. Otherwise the NFL was correct in penalizing them.

By: vegasvinnie

vegasvinnie — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:39:15 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Cerullo the coach that went AWOL for almost a week while the Saints were preparing for Super Bowl 44?

If we’re going to raise credibility issues, we can start and end there.

By: jamesmcv72

jamesmcv72 — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:47:23 +0000

Zzzzzzzzzz……..

By: pigskin28

pigskin28 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:45:19 +0000

There’s millions of people travelling down America’s highway.Many speed. Why do only a few get caught? And why are’nt all those caught disciplined?

Do you live in a cocoon.

By: jedidev

jedidev — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:17:42 +0000

the NFL still sees it as a problem that players would pay each other to knock other players out of the game. It doesn’t matter that it’s their job and that’s what they get paid to do. They were celebrating injuries by paying others when they happened. I don’t think Vilma would like it if people were paid extra money if he was carted off the field and miss playing time because of it. The fact is, it something that the Goodell knows could have had a negative impact on the league if he didn’t take action. Maybe the penalties were harsher than need be but they did deserve some punishment.

————————–

Doesn’t the NFL sell photos of these big hits?

By: jedidev

jedidev — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:15:43 +0000

So what about the 2010 and 2011 seasons? I don’t see anything in either of these statements that supports the “3-year pay-to-injure” allegations that was the basis of many of the Saints’ punishments.

By: jcaro5566

jcaro5566 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:25:10 +0000

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “legal” angle, but the angle on how to use the law to your benefit when you may be guilty.

By: wiley16350

wiley16350 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:00:25 +0000

By: wiley16350

wiley16350 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:50:11 +0000

But how are you going use the fact that Vilma has 10 sworn statements exonerating him as the foundation for your counter-argument? Those are his friends’ and teammates’ statements. They hold no more water than Williams’ or Cerullo’s statements, regardless if he has 1, 10, or 100.
__________________________________
I’m guessing the sworn statements for Vilma are that Vilma never offered $10,000 to anyone to intentionally injure Favre/ Warner. Which is technically true. The $10,000 was to knock Favre/ Warner out for the game not to injure him. Basically the technicality would be the old saying are you “hurt” or are you injured”. The players want to contort it to say they were only paying to “hurt” another player and not “injure” him. The NFL doesn’t care which it was for, the NFL still sees it as a problem that players would pay each other to knock other players out of the game. It doesn’t matter that it’s their job and that’s what they get paid to do. They were celebrating injuries by paying others when they happened. I don’t think Vilma would like it if people were paid extra money if he was carted off the field and miss playing time because of it. The fact is, it something that the Goodell knows could have had a negative impact on the league if he didn’t take action. Maybe the penalties were harsher than need be but they did deserve some punishment.

By: ajpurp

ajpurp — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:42:45 +0000

Really? Cause trials always bring out the truth? Ha. Lawyers find ways around the truth, the trial would bring out the truth of the side that has the best lawyer. See e.g. Simpson and Clemens.

By: mogogo1

mogogo1 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:02:02 +0000

Who didn’t see this day coming? Sure, it was fun for Saints fans to pretend there was some irrational league vendetta against them, that the coaches apologized for absolutely nothing, and that there was no evidence of any kind…but that never made any sense whatsoever. We’ll continue to get more and more evidence and the list of supposed “liars” will soon be far longer than the number of Saints players claiming nothing ever happened.

By: wiley16350

wiley16350 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:32:35 +0000

One other question: If he was that deeply involved, why isn’t the NFL disciplining him instead of commending him. Ginsberg is going to have fun with that guy.
___________________________________
Because Cerullo no longer works in the NFL.

Did Cerullo bring this to the NFL,or did he just comply with an on going investigation?
__________________________________
I think it’s clear that Cerullo brought this to the NFL and thats why there was an investigation. There was no NFL conspiracy against the Saints, maybe a Cerullo one but not the NFL.

One other question does need to be asked. If as Cerullo says each player was required to pay $100 a week, why did only 4 get nailed?
__________________________________
Vilma was nailed for the $10,000 for injury. Fujita and Smith were nailed for extra money that they pledged prior to the 2009 NFC championship. presumably for knocking Favre out. Hargrove was penalized for outright lying to Goodell when he was brought to the league office during the investigation. All the other players can only be associated with pay for performance. Vilma, Smith and Fujita are associated with paying for injury to Favre and/or Warner.

By: gochargersgo

gochargersgo — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:29:02 +0000

People are questioning the validity of the sworn statements by Cerullo and Williams based on the obvious motives they both have to cooperate with the league. Fair enough.

By: gochargersgo

gochargersgo — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:14:03 +0000

It is mystifying to read all of these comments suggesting that the Saints did not pay Cerullo severance because they had nothing to hide. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Goodell’s punishment/ handling of this case, to suggest that no illicit program existed is nothing short of delusional.

By: yingers308

yingers308 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:54:51 +0000

The reason Cerullo was fired was because he lied. Maybe the Saints should have taken his threat to get revenge more seriously, but I guess they didn’t think people (RG) would believe a known liar.

By: bearflagfan

bearflagfan — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:49:03 +0000

Most of these questions are irrelevant to the way this issue is playing out. This won’t be adjudicated to a jury that may be swayed by the character of the primary witness (i.e. Brian McNamee’s credibility in the Roger Clemens steroid trial). Instead, the final judge will either be Roger Goddell or an admin law judge, and if there’s corroborating evidence to back Cerullo’s testimony it doesn’t matter if he has an axe to grind or not. Most of these other “questions” are so obviously answered on the surface, it seems a waste of time to ask so many straw-man questions when there’s other, real stories out there.
- Employment ended April 2010. Duh, we know NFL fiscal years start April 1, so if someone’s contract isn’t renewed that’s when it happened.
- Most of the ‘issues’ of pay-for-performance are chump change and, while technically against NFL rules, would only have merited a slap on the hand, possibly a small fine. Nobody cares about fining someone $100 for being lazy or getting $100 for a great tackle. It was incentivizing players to cause injuries to key opponents (Warner, Favre, Rodgers). The other stuff just establishes an ongoing culture of fines/reward for all types of play – a “gateway drug” if you will.
- Do you actually think Saints lawyers know what goes on? Why would an HR lawyer consider paying hush money? Remember, also, in most jurisdictions if you are paid extra to keep quiet, and you talk, you generally can’t be sued for more than the extra settlement. Paying $10K to keep someone quiet isn’t worth it – the best you can do is sue them for the $10K back and it would cost the club $50K to do it…and you’d look bad doing it. (Headline: Saints Sue Whistle Blower Over Hush Money). So real hush money doesn’t become effective until its in the six figures.

So, Mike, you’re the Saints attorney. In 2010, when the NFL investigation of pay-for-performance is completed, you’re going to the owner to say, hey, just to be safe lets pay this low-level, three-year employee a $100,000 severance to assure he doesn’t reveal anything. The only severance package they’d be assembling is yours for such a crazy notion.

But now lets say in a moment of idiocy they approve either a $10K or $100K non-disclosure agreement (NDA) payment. NFL investigators end up talking to Cerullo. NFL: “We understand you may know something about the Saints pay-for-performance program. Cerullo: “Sorry guys but I signed an NDA that doesn’t allow me to discuss what happened while I was a Saints employee.” NFL investigator calls Goddell, who calls the Saints and requests the Saints waive their NDA to complete the investigation. Saints must comply or the NFL will get a court order – there’s no upside to pay an NDA – at least in relation to hiding things from the NFL.

Mike, you have great knowledge in so many areas but your expertise in HR settlements isn’t up to speed.

Stick to your strengths.

By: jaltreality

jaltreality — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:47:49 +0000

Along with Vilma and the players, there are a total of 10 sworn affidavits alleging there was no pay-to-injure program within the New Orleans Saints. I am sure many others (Sean Payton, Vitt, etc.) would testify on the player behalf, if they weren’t keeping relatively tight-lipped to avoid the wrath of Roger Goodell.

There are two affidavits being offered by the NFL. One is Gregg Williams’ affidavit. As I mentioned above, Gregg Williams is banned until Roger Goodell decides otherwise, so it is reasonable to be skeptical as to the genuineness of his affidavit. The second, Mike Cerullo, appears to be a disgruntled employee.

My point is, if you don’t let your fandom get in the way of your logic, if you treat this objectively, this is a shaky basis to ban and penalize the Saints. Personally, I think what the Saints did is a clear, albeit it technical, violation of salary cap restrictions, but is likely common among the league.

However, the increased awareness of concussions and their aftermath, which may one day spell the end of our beloved NFL, is a very real issue Mr. Goodell must deal with. The Saints were in the wrong place at the wrong time; their behavior did violate the rules, but their disproportionate punishment reflects the need for Mr. Goodell to make an example out of someone, in order to appear concerned about concussions and stave off the (likely inevitable) for a while longer.

By: jaltreality

jaltreality — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:43:04 +0000

“For all of you people thinking this guy is lying please tell me why Greg Williams would admit to a bounty program while getting baned for life from the NFL? Don’t you think if this stuff wasn’t true he would have gone down with a fight instead of admitting that this stuff was going on?”

He is banned indefinitely, not for life. His reinstatement in the league is at the sole discretion of Roger Goodell. Thus, it would make sense to play ball with Goodell in order to curry the favor needed to be reinstated.

By: savocabol1

savocabol1 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:41:39 +0000

This is why lawyers make so much money….they waste everyone’s time. So many of your follow up questions are conjecture and unnecessary.

By: gbmickey

gbmickey — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:38:31 +0000

Once again we hear the biased view against the league. It would be refreshing to see some balanced lawyering on the subject.

By: crawfishtale

crawfishtale — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:35:13 +0000

Mike Florio, you should be a lawyer. (I know.) You help those of us who learn our football and lawyer stuff only from watching TV, which is awfully inadequate to be real good at understanding that stuff…….Recalling the old Alka Seltzer commercial featuring the prison inmates banging their silverware on the lunch tables in perfect time and shouting their demand for ALKA SELTZER!! ALKA SELTZER!, I am banging my keyboard buttons and shouting my demand also: TRIAL! TRIAL!

By: mcarter0399

mcarter0399 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:16 +0000

For all of you people thinking this guy is lying please tell me why Greg Williams would admit to a bounty program while getting baned for life from the NFL? Don’t you think if this stuff wasn’t true he would have gone down with a fight instead of admitting that this stuff was going on?

By: yooperman

yooperman — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:24:57 +0000

From a legal view, somebody has commit a felony by lying. If it is true, it also a felony to crossing state lines to attemp to injure someone. It’s time to turn this over to FBI.

By: musicman495

musicman495 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:01:59 +0000

So this is the NFL’s entire case? Taking the word of one disgruntled loser, and Williams’s statement from four days ago? Where are the other 49,950 pages? And why does the Commissioner consider this guy’s word any more reliable than Vilma’s, and the 30 other witnesses that Ginsberg says he has that say this never happened?

By: lightcleric

lightcleric — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:51:20 +0000

Thank you for breaking this down(and the bounty thing in general) from the legal angle. A lot of other places won’t do this kind of analysis because they think it would “bore” their readers.

By: bigjdve

bigjdve — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:50:18 +0000

Personally I believe that the entire Saints team is guilty of being a party to/or participating with this Pay for Performance program. So why they didn’t just hammer the whole team, who knows.

While I have been very cynical of your reviews of this situation to this point, the questions you raise are really good and should be addressed if not in the initial hearing then in the appeal hearing.

One other question does need to be asked. If as Cerullo says each player was required to pay $100 a week, why did only 4 get nailed?

If I were one of the 4 players, that would be one of the first questions that I would ask.

By: sj39

sj39 — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:50:14 +0000

When did all this bounty scandal stuff take place? I’ve never heard of it.