August 2011 stipulation takes center stage in collusion case

Getty Images

The NFLPA conducted a conference call Wednesday afternoon to address questions regarding the collusion case that was filed earlier in the day against the NFL.  The 45-minute discussion focused at times on the language of a “Stipulation of Dismissal” submitted by the lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA upon conclusion of the Reggie White litigation in August 2011.

The stipulation plainly states that the parties agreed to a dismissal of all claims, “known and unknown, whether pending or not,” including but not limited to “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.”  NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, who at one pointed admitted that the stipulation if effective would be fatal to the new collusion claim, contends that the stipulation was superseded by a subsequent order entered by Judge David Doty.

Predictably, the NFL disagrees.  “A stipulation of dismissal on behalf of the union and the White class was signed by Kessler and filed in the Court,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email.  “The union is bound by that document.”

We’re now trying to get our hands (or at least our eyes) on the Doty order to which Kessler referred.  Though the language of the order signed by Judge Doty won’t win the new collusion case, it could quickly kill it.

Kessler also elaborated on the basis for the collusion claim.  We’ll address that in a separate item.

15 responses to “August 2011 stipulation takes center stage in collusion case

  1. Ok now I starting to think De Smith and the NFLPA doesn’t know what it’s doing.

  2. But what are the actual damages? No teams were going to break the bank. All the PA can prove is that the league told teams not to move money from future capped years into the uncapped year. It sounds like a wash to me.

  3. Between all the different lawsuits do you think they will have time to play football this year?

    If the present and former players win all the suits now pending, the next thing will be that the league is bankrupt.

  4. confusing.. wouldnt this limit the NFL from placing any punishments on the actions of a team during that time??

    just as it stops a team from having any standing during this time…..

  5. I smell a Congressional Hearing right around the beginning of the season. Get em!!!

  6. This happened before the CBA was signed. Goodell approved these contracts. A contract is void if one member knowingly hides something. They knew about this because they approved them, and a year later took action. In basic law the CBA is a void contract. This could get really interesting.

  7. This case was paid for already in the agreement to the cap penalties. What I mean by that is that De Smith and Co. agreed to the penalties for an artificial increase in the salary cap… knowing that otherwise they weren’t going to have a job come the following election cycle (which just passed). They sold out those teams *and* their ability to win this case just so that they could keep their jobs. They know they’re going to lose this case because of the agreements they already made, but they’re going through the motions anyway so that it looks like they’re at least “trying” to be “tough.”

    Conspiracy? Nope.

    Calculated? Absolutely. And I wouldn’t put it past that bunch.

  8. I’ve yet to see a Stipulation of Dismissal and accompanying Court Order ever “superseded” and/or rendered invalid by a subsequent order. If anything, the prior order is supplemented and remains valid. The NFLPA and their attorneys could really look like dopes here — to the point that they have to pay the NFL’s legal fees.

  9. Wow the NFLPA really blew it. No surprise. I guess this really is the Worst Deal In the History of Sports.

  10. So with the new information that has come to light, can an outside, governmental source, come into play against the NFL? Is that even a possible threat? I would imagine this seem like fairly concrete evidence of an anti-trust violation.

  11. Come on, if your arguing over the NFL approval because there was no cap that cuts both ways. What grounds would the NFL have has to deny the contracts with no cap in places UNTIL the new CBA was in place? Get it, the league couldn’t deny the contracts until now based on violation of the CURRENT CBA.

  12. And the government gets involved depends on the evidence of any collusion and any violation of their antitrust exception. They could form a committee to investigate but without any proof they can’t act same with dept. of labor and the professional sports exceptions.

Leave a Reply

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