Commissioner’s testimony on NFL relocation policy creates another problem for NFL in Rams case

Bilt Rewards Launch Party
Getty Images

Earlier, we pointed out Commissioner Roger Goodell and several owners must surrender their personal financial information as part of the lawsuit regarding the relocation of the Rams. That decision, and the reasons for it, are not good for the NFL.

Also not good for the NFL is the fact that, at a time when the league hopes to get the case thrown out of court based on the argument that its relocation policy is voluntary, the plaintiffs in the relocation litigation introduced testimony from Goodell that clearly and directly contradicts the league’s position.

Last month, the league filed a motion for summary judgment based in part on the argument that the relocation policy represents a voluntary set of guidelines. On Monday (via Randy Karraker of 101 ESPN), the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit pointed out that Commissioner Roger Goodell has testified otherwise.

Via Karraker, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs asked Goodell if the relocation policy is “mandatory.” Goodell said in response, “Counselor, it says right here” that they are.

From the perspective of a corporate defendant, civil cases routinely get over-lawyered. The firm charging by the hour for the efforts of the entire team of lawyers assigned to the case have no incentive to be brief or incisive. Also, the fact that they’ll receive a passive-aggressive “did you argue this?” and “did you argue that?” grilling from colleagues at their law firms provides another reason to argue anything and everything that can be argued.

That said, it’s important that the arguments made find some plausible support in the facts. If the NFL claims the relocation policy is voluntary and the Commissioner of the NFL has admitted under oath that it’s not, that’s a problem. A big problem. The kind of problem that undermines the credibility of every claim the NFL is making in the case.

Indeed, if the league can’t be taken at its word on such a basic and clear question, what if anything that it says in that case can be believed?

7 responses to “Commissioner’s testimony on NFL relocation policy creates another problem for NFL in Rams case

  1. St Louis doesnt want to support a NFL franchise then sues for the problem they created. Typical American way these days.

  2. I have been saying this since “Spygate”, right through to Ray Rice, and into Deflategate.

    Goodell literally believes he can lie, cheat and steal because of the 2 corrupt judges they paid off in the Deflategate appeal, using “Article 46” as their argument.

    It explain all of his lies and actions since taking over.

    In other words, he thinks he is untouchable under US laws, including perjury.

    Some of us warned of what it would mean. And, here we are again watching Goodell contradict himself and lie again.

  3. “what if anything that it says in that case can be believed?”

    I think you’ve answered your own question….. Lol… NO.!!
    Does anyone truly believe what comes out of the NFL is ever the truth..?
    No way….. Propaganda at its finest….. shall we play a game…. How about the draft & draft prospects & maneuverings…. Weekly injury reports…. lLol….. that’s simply starters

  4. The NFL just looked down and realized they have stepped in it. THIS is the kind of thing they want to avoid almost beyond anything accept perhaps a major issue with a broadcaster. This invites other people who were thinking of possible action against the NFL on other matters to go back and see if the commissioner has made a similar gaffe. Or if the anyone deposed have ever said anything this actionable. This will breed other trouble for the owners and commissioner down the road

  5. I will always hate Goodell for catching us in “Spygate”. We should have gotten away with it fair and square. I will not stop posting about him if it’s the last thing I do!

  6. HagemeisterPark says:
    July 12, 2021 at 9:20 pm
    St Louis doesnt want to support a NFL franchise then sues for the problem they created. Typical American way these days.

    OK let’s talk about cities that won’t support a team and the 1st one that comes to mind is LA, how many NFL teams have they had and they wouldn’t support any of them?

    The Rams, Chargers(in 1960 before they moved to San Diego), the Raiders twice and now the Rams and Chargers again, so the answer is 6! Hell the Chargers can’t even sell-out a 25,000 seat soccer stadium unless it’s with the opposing teams fans.

  7. Any idiot who says this lawsuit is frivolous needs to pay attention. The NFL told St. Louis to put a package together with plans and tax coverage to fund the stadium under the guise St. Louis had a legitimate shot to keep the Rams. They never did, and St. Louis spent over $ 30 million on a protect the NFL never planned on actually listening to.

    Secondly St. Louis supported the Rams until it was obvious under Jeff Fischer neither the owner nor the GM cared to put a winning product on the field. Amazing how the team was under .500 for so many years, move and start acquiring talent then go to on to lose the SB.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.