Welcome to PatsFans.com

Here we go again, NFLPA files suit against NFL

Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by MoLewisrocks, May 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  2. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

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

    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/
  3. sieglo

    sieglo Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,243
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

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

    mayoclinic PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,677
    Likes Received:
    183
    Ratings:
    +414 / 0 / -2

    From Florio:

    Collusion suit directly resulted from Redskins, Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk
  5. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,889
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +1,171 / 52 / -64

    Disable Jersey

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

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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.
  7. lurker1965

    lurker1965 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    43
    Ratings:
    +97 / 6 / -7

    No Jersey Selected

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

    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.
  8. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

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

    At least the lawyers will get paid :mad:
  9. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,054
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +180 / 0 / -2

    No Jersey Selected

    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?"
  10. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,889
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +1,171 / 52 / -64

    Disable Jersey

    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).
  11. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,272
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ratings:
    +341 / 5 / -2

    #51 Jersey

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

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,718
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

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

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    22,603
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +478 / 18 / -14

  14. TyronePoole

    TyronePoole Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    He's still right though
  15. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -0

    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.
  16. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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...
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  17. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    22,603
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +478 / 18 / -14

    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.
  18. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,209
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +290 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    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.
  19. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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.
  20. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,209
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +290 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    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.

    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..

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>