Here we go again, NFLPA files suit against NFL

[MoLewisrocks]

For collusion. To be heard by their old pal Judge Doty. Even though the new CBA settled all claims known and unknown...

Jones and Snyder gave up after losing their grievance. Unfortunately persuing it at all allows the NFLPA to waste more player funds (and reduce league revenue for 2013) on legal fees in what will ultimately be a losing effort. I guess their goal is manufacturing leverage. Honestly, though, their lead lawyer simply isn't satisfied to bankrupt his own practice, the ultimate goal is for lawyers to bankrupt the union and the league.

NFL Players Association files collusion claim against league - Jim Trotter - SI.com

 

[MoLewisrocks]

FYI, here is the pertinent section of the 2011 CBA that precludes this filing:

CBA Article 3, Section 3:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the
Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to
any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation…collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011…or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement.

Of course their 83 year old buddy may not interpret this article to say what we all can clearly see it says...

The NFLPA has about 20 lawyers lined up to represent them in this money grab... Lots of familiar faces, the egg covered ones who signed off on a deal that resulted in flat caps that they have spent the last couple of weeks trying to tell their members aren't really flat...

Here is a link to the NFLPA media release which includes a link to the actual filing for those intent on persuing a migraine this afternoon.

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles...-File-Collusion-Complaint-Against-NFL-Owners/

 

[sieglo]

Why is it that the players can get together and collude against the owners, but the owners can't collude against the players?

 

[mayoclinic]

From Florio:

The lawsuit filed Wednesday by the NFLPA against the NFL for collusion in the uncapped year technically is framed as a petition to “reopen and enforce” the agreement that finally settled the Reggie White litigation. And it’s clear upon reviewing the 20-page document that the claim flows directly from the NFL’s effort to remove $46 million in combined cap space from the Cowboys and Redskins.

Setting aside for now the impact of the NFLPA’s agreement to those cap penalties upon the new action, it’s clear that the claims wouldn’t have been made at all if the NFL hadn’t tried to impose the cap charges on the Cowboys and Redskins for their behavior in the uncapped year.

Paragraph 2 of the petition explains that the NFLPA became first aware of the alleged “conspiracy” to limit spending in the uncapped year to $123 million per team via the disclosure on March 12 that four teams (the Cowboys, Redskins, Saints, and Raiders) failed to “abide by secret NFL rules to suppress player salaries.”

The petition explains that the Redskins exceeded the secret cap by more than $102 million, the Cowboys by more than $52 million, the Raiders by more than $41 million, and the Saints by more than $36 million. (No cap penalties were imposed on the Raiders and Saints, but those teams were barred from participating in the reallocated cap space that had been stripped from the Redskins and Cowboys.)

The petition alleges actual damages of “up to $1 billion, if not substantially more,” and the NFLPA contends that treble damages are in order, putting the potential bill at more than $3 billion.

In support of the claims, the NFLPA cites comments from Giants co-owner John Mara (who said the issue “came up several times in [ownership-level] meetings,” that the teams in question “attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks,” and that the teams knew “full well there would be consequences”), quotes from Commissioner Roger Goodell (who said, “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear”), and even a PFT report that teams were warned “at least six times” against dumping cap dollars into the uncapped year. (Maybe I’ll finally get to refuse to identify a source on the witness stand and go to jail . . . and get shanked.)

The point for now is that, if the NFL simply hadn’t gone after the Redskins and Cowboys, the NFL wouldn’t currently be dealing with the present claim, which makes abundantly clear that the next nine years of labor peace will entail plenty of labor but not much peace.

Moreover, the fact that the Cowboys and Redskins aggressively fought the penalties served only to highlight the story and generate many of the quotes the NFLPA is now using against the league. And while the NFLPA doesn’t explain how it knows that a secret $123 million per-team cap applied in 2010, it’s not a major stretch to conclude that someone from the Cowboys or the Redskins made that disclosure to the union in a fit of frustration and/or rage in discussions that occurred after the cap penalties hit the fan.

Of course, the bigger question is whether the NFLPA has the ability to make these claims, in light of the settlement agreement and the later agreement to impose the cap penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins. We’ll address that issue separately.

Collusion suit directly resulted from Redskins, Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk

 

[Deus Irae]

This should have been done way back when the first public comments about this were made.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Perhaps, but by then the NFLPA had already signed off on the penalty as an addendum to the new CBA (per the Special Master who heard the Cowboy/Redskin grievance last week). And then there is the whole matter of the global settlement of all issues known and unknown.

Lots of teams including this one spent in excess of $123M in 2010. That's not what those other teams were penalized for. They were retroactively penalized for their treatment of certain monies for accounting purposes going forward. They were warned there would be a cap again, that's not collusion - it's a fact of life without which the players would still be locked out. The NFLPA was aware of that at the time. In fact they filed a grievance prior to the expiration of the old CBA to that effect just for good measure. Doty dismissed it as part of that global settlement.

This is just a leverage and PR ploy. As is most everything the NFLPA does. Maybe they can trade dropping the suit for relief from the horror of players being forced into wearing more padding. Or in exchange for just forgetting about HgH testing until Congress mandates it. Or for another phony bump in the flat cap formula they negotiated in the last CBA. Would be something if they ever spent nearly as much time and effort in constructively working towards improving the health and safety of their constituents as they do in feathering the bottom line of their growing army of lawyers. Kessler's new post bankrupcy firm will make a bundle if they can just get past round 1 with Doty, even though on appeal union members will end up with less $$ in the kitty. Kind of like they did after shelling out millions for lockout insurance. Think what they could do with that money to help retirees who are struggling financially or emotionally or both. But then, nevermind - what was I thinking. Retirees aren't the NFLPA's constituency. De is on record stating that.

 

[lurker1965]

I thought some idiot had bumped a thread from last year.

I look forward to discovery. Oh, they have no case, but can embarrass the owners wanting to see their books. "How else would we know how much you could've paid us." For something else, they'll drop the suit.

This suit is leverage.

 

[spacecrime]

The NFLPA is making me side with the Commish, and I hate that.

At least the lawyers will get paid

 

[Uncle Rico]

Judy Battista of the NYT had a great line this a.m. on Twitter: "Is it possible the NFL and NFLPA were getting along better DURING the lockout than they are now?"

 

[Deus Irae]

Perhaps, but by then the NFLPA had already signed off on the penalty as an addendum to the new CBA (per the Special Master who heard the Cowboy/Redskin grievance last week). And then there is the whole matter of the global settlement of all issues known and unknown.

Lots of teams including this one spent in excess of $123M in 2010. That's not what those other teams were penalized for. They were retroactively penalized for their treatment of certain monies for accounting purposes going forward. They were warned there would be a cap again, that's not collusion - it's a fact of life without which the players would still be locked out. The NFLPA was aware of that at the time. In fact they filed a grievance prior to the expiration of the old CBA to that effect just for good measure. Doty dismissed it as part of that global settlement.

This is just a leverage and PR ploy. As is most everything the NFLPA does. Maybe they can trade dropping the suit for relief from the horror of players being forced into wearing more padding. Or in exchange for just forgetting about HgH testing until Congress mandates it. Or for another phony bump in the flat cap formula they negotiated in the last CBA. Would be something if they ever spent nearly as much time and effort in constructively working towards improving the health and safety of their constituents as they do in feathering the bottom line of their growing army of lawyers. Kessler's new post bankrupcy firm will make a bundle if they can just get past round 1 with Doty, even though on appeal union members will end up with less $$ in the kitty. Kind of like they did after shelling out millions for lockout insurance. Think what they could do with that money to help retirees who are struggling financially or emotionally or both. But then, nevermind - what was I thinking. Retirees aren't the NFLPA's constituency. De is on record stating that.

During Wednesday’s conference call, NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler explained that, in his view, the new collusion claim based on an allegedly secret $123 million salary cap in 2010 couldn’t have been made in the White or Brady case because the NFLPA didn’t know about it. Kessler also contended that the case law on controversies of this nature will support his position.

NFLPA contends Article 3 of new CBA doesn’t apply to collusion case | ProFootballTalk

I don't want to rehash the whole collusion issue, since we beat that horse pretty well. I'm just pointing out that this should have been dealt with earlier (like back when we were beating the poor horse to death and beyond).

 

[ausbacker]

Kessler will support any position that sees his billable hours trend upward.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Kessler will support any position that sees his billable hours trend upward.

He is at a new law firm and has to prove his worth...What better way than by making it rain???

 

[Ring 6]

NFLPA contends Article 3 of new CBA doesn’t apply to collusion case | ProFootballTalk

I don't want to rehash the whole collusion issue, since we beat that horse pretty well. I'm just pointing out that this should have been dealt with earlier (like back when we were beating the poor horse to death and beyond).

And when the horse died, as usual, just about everyone disagreed with you.

 

[TyronePoole]

And when the horse died, as usual, just about everyone disagreed with you.

He's still right though

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

And when the horse died, as usual, just about everyone disagreed with you.

Good to see you skipping straight ahead to the adhominem... Stuff like this adds nothing to the discussion and just helps him derail the conversation more quickly.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

ProFootballTalk‏@ProFootballTalk

Here's my current position on the collusion suit: Was there collusion? Absolutely. Is it too late to do anything about it? Absolutely.

Florio loves having a bone to pick or inciting others to pick one. He's changed his tune already this evening. Now says of course it was collusion but it's too late to prevail in persuing it. I prefer to listen to the lawyers who have actually got some experience in this field. They seem to think the NFLPA is tilting at windmills for leverage and billable hours for their legal crew. They've been smarting over the flat cap and some owners rubbing it in. They are unhappy about being told what will transpire (HgH, player suspensions, pads, etc.) rather than being asked permission for any things to transpire. Of course that's something else they forgot to read the fine print on in the new CBA...

Lots of teams spent well in excess of $123M in 2011 and they didn't get penalized because they treated the money for accounting purposes pretty much as they always had were told by the league they would be required to when the cap returned. Green Bay spent $135M against the cap. We spent $128M. What other teams didn't do that the Cowboys and Redskins in particular did to excess was change the way they had always treated money for accounting purposes just that one year. They did that including with contracts like Haynesworth's that preceded 2011, in order to circumvent future caps - thereby creating competitive cap advantage for themselves going forward. This has nothing to do with how much teams spent on players, which is another reason why the suit has no merit. Heck, even if they had all spent less logic would dictate and conclude they did so because of labor uncertainty...

The league never had a secret cap, they just reiterated that there would be one again going forward (and that is not collusion, it's just a fact of life without which there would have been no new CBA) and it would have essentially the same accounting rules. And they were right, that's exactly what the NFLPA (who previously claimed there would never be a salary cap again once an uncapped season occurred) signed off on. And reaffirmed when they agreed to amend the CBA to allow for penalties to be imposed on 2 teams in exchange for a little boost in the flat cap to save face with the morons they supposedly represent.

In the meantime Doty may well choose to ignore case and labor law and just march to his own drummer, so this will likely drag out until an appeals court steps in and throws the whole thing out based on them. Kind of like the lockout and the disolution of the union... But in the interim the NFLPA will attempt to barter for some concessions that make them look good to the morons. And as everyone's billable hours mount they may get some. Which is fine with me as long as the league gets to point to those down the road when they are being sued by former union members for not doing enough to insure player health and safety...

 

[Ring 6]

He's still right though

Establishing accounting principles to determine how moves in an uncapped year will affect future capped years, if a cap returns is not collusion. Shifting cap room from one tean to others does not constitute a loss of anything.

 

[DaBruinz]

Establishing accounting principles to determine how moves in an uncapped year will affect future capped years, if a cap returns is not collusion. Shifting cap room from one tean to others does not constitute a loss of anything.

My guess is that the "loss" of income stems from the other teams not going significantly beyond the "$123 million secret cap". That, had the teams not "colluded", that players would have taken home more money which they could have then turned around and invested. The problem is that everyone knows that something like only 1 in 5 actually invests their money in something other than "bling", cars, parties, ridiculous houses, etc. So, that angle is really not one the players should want to use because it's one they will lose sympathy on.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

My guess is that the "loss" of income stems from the other teams not going significantly beyond the "$123 million secret cap". That, had the teams not "colluded", that players would have taken home more money which they could have then turned around and invested. The problem is that everyone knows that something like only 1 in 5 actually invests their money in something other than "bling", cars, parties, ridiculous houses, etc. So, that angle is really not one the players should want to use because it's one they will lose sympathy on.

The loss of income is total crap. First off, they didn't. Lots of teams spent more than $123M against the cap, not to mention more in cash as is always the case. We spent $128M against the cap. Green Bay spent $135M. We simply accounted for it as we always had, as did GB. The penalized teams who used to do anything to avoid absorbing cap in the present suddenly did things for just one year to absorb millions more of it. Then in 2011 went right back to cash over cap bonus structure to avoid it.

Teams that chose to not overextend during the uncapped year also likely did so for sound business reasons, like the impending lockout that could have wiped out a season or more. The Boys and Skins didn't spend more so much as treat it differently. And no one took money away from players as a result. Then or now. In fact the cap penalty was just that, a penalty on two teams that was redistributed to 28 teams who can now pay more...

This is about other things. Like the overall outcome of the new CBA (flat caps they have to negotiate away something in order to save face on and the fact that they did nothing to alter Goodell's power. Had this year's cap been $114M as some claim it was prior to the league agreeing to borrow from the future to inflate the present and throw in a million or so more via penalty redistribution, De likely doesn't get re elected and the NFLPA Executive Committee is looking for new lawyers. Now that all the usual players are back under contract or retainer, they are looking for ways to leverage the league into giving them back some of what they apparently bargained away last summer...

The first inkling the era of cooperation was a mirage was the agreement on HgH turning out to be unenforceable because the NFLPA has no intention of signing off on something it promised it would.

 

[DaBruinz]

The loss of income is total crap. First off, they didn't. Lots of teams spent more than $123M against the cap, not to mention more in cash as is always the case. We spent $128M against the cap. Green Bay spent $135M. We simply accounted for it as we always had, as did GB. The penalized teams who used to do anything to avoid absorbing cap in the present suddenly did things for just one year to absorb millions more of it. Then in 2011 went right back to cash over cap bonus structure to avoid it.

Mo - You are preaching to the choir. I know that the NFLPA's claims are crap. That is their typical modus operandi since after the CBA granting them free agency back in 1993.

Teams that chose to not overextend during the uncapped year also likely did so for sound business reasons, like the impending lockout that could have wiped out a season or more. The Boys and Skins didn't spend more so much as treat it differently. And no one took money away from players as a result. Then or now. In fact the cap penalty was just that, a penalty on two teams that was redistributed to 28 teams who can now pay more...

NFLPA chief says collusion claim will hold up - NFL - Sporting News

What I love about this article is that, supposedly, the courts didn't accept the article of the CBA that the league referenced. The problem with De Smith's explanation is that, as far as I know, that article that the league referenced was in the signed agreement that the courts DID accept..

This is about other things. Like the overall outcome of the new CBA (flat caps they have to negotiate away something in order to save face on and the fact that they did nothing to alter Goodell's power. Had this year's cap been $114M as some claim it was prior to the league agreeing to borrow from the future to inflate the present and throw in a million or so more via penalty redistribution, De likely doesn't get re elected and the NFLPA Executive Committee is looking for new lawyers. Now that all the usual players are back under contract or retainer, they are looking for ways to leverage the league into giving them back some of what they apparently bargained away last summer...

The first inkling the era of cooperation was a mirage was the agreement on HgH turning out to be unenforceable because the NFLPA has no intention of signing off on something it promised it would.

The NFL honestly needs to hold the NFLPA to the fire on these agreements. Like the HgH testing. At some point, the players WILL have to give in to the testing OR get HgH acknowledged as a substance that can be used if medically prescribed by an NFL approved physician.