NFLPA files suit in Federal Court against NFL

[DaBruinz]

Players union sues NFL in bounty case - Football Wires - MiamiHerald.com

Yep.. So much for the standard procedures that the NFLPA agreed to in the CBA.

They agree to 2 outside arbitrators, don't like the results, and file a lawsuit anyways..

Pretty sure the CBA precludes them from doing so and that the case should be thrown out.

I think it's really pathetic that these guys just can't own up to what they did. Of course, if they did, they'd probably be facing lawsuits themselves and it would also hurt the lawsuits that former players have going on in courts right now.

 

[ausbacker]

The NFLPA Executive is a joke. That should be plainly obvious to see.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

Is it Sunday yet?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Usually I'd chalk this up to "just a union doing its job", but I have to wonder why the NFLPA can't go along with a punishment that is meant to ensure the safety of all of the players who aren't involved in pay-to-injure programs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Usually I'd chalk this up to "just a union doing its job", but I have to wonder why the NFLPA can't go along with a punishment that is meant to ensure the safety of all of the players who aren't involved in pay-to-injure programs.

Unions do this sort of thing all the time, even with the 'guilty'. Take a look at the police if you want to see really blatant examples of it.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Unions do this sort of thing all the time, even with the 'guilty'. Take a look at the police if you want to see really blatant examples of it.

"Simma down na" :enranged:

 

[BradyFTW!]

Unions do this sort of thing all the time, even with the 'guilty'. Take a look at the police if you want to see really blatant examples of it.

No doubt, it's strange as hell. Has never made sense to me. Police examples are definitely the most egregious ones that I know of, but even then, the victims of officers that cross the line are rarely (never?) other police officers.

 

[lurker1965]

Players union sues NFL in bounty case - Football Wires - MiamiHerald.com

...

I do not care, except I want to see Goodell under oath.

 

[Why?PJ]

i'd rather see the union be forcibly disbanded because of stupidity. Make it another decade before the players can have another union.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In the end Kraft et al were able to get a deal done to end the lockout only by getting the lawyers out of the room. Turned out though that the deal, while good for the long term health of the business of football was not a good deal for the short term interests of the NFLPA, whose litigators on retainer have made it a point since to recoup all the billable hours lost when the two sides came together last July. The pit bull Kessler is representing the NFLPA in this suit. He's always been more than your run of the mill outside counsel. He's been a hardline agenda driver dating back to the end of Upshaw's tenure. He was the driving force behind if the cap goes it will never return blather that led to the bad deal that was the 2006 CBA as well as the decertification to get into court strategy that gained exactly nothing beyond billable hours for lawyers in this last negotiation. God knows the deal they got was certainly always on the table since financially it benefitted ownership. The player health and safety concessions the union hangs their hat on were never at issue for ownership - doesn't cost them a cent. Only coaches cared about those tradeoffs because they now have to find a way to adapt to and coach around them.

I read the other day where part of Goodell's platform when elected was the desire to get out in front of potential issues and make changes before someone or something else mandated you to. HgH was the first indication that despite the 10 year CBA that was heralded to insure labor peace and stability for a decade, the NFLPA was going to retain the option of fighting change via guerrilla warfare tactics designed to result in securing judicial oversight or just such mandates (courts, congress, etc.) at every turn. Otherwise where are the future billiable hours for the agenda driver going to come from...

It's unfortunate because I think De the beltway litigator had figured out over the course of the CBA drama that the platform he got elected on, lets take the fight to court, wasn't going to work for his rank and file constituents. But since then he has also become aware that failure to continue to espouse it might well help empower enemies that could cost him the gig anyway. So he's since been reduced to dancing on a high wire and going along to get along. In the end the only losers will be the rank and file who are paying for the agenda drivers billable hours theatrics via dues that could easily have been put to better use, like creating better support and education programs to help save players from themselves coming and going... Freakin' waste of time and effort and resources on the handful of screwups and short sighted, self absorbed whiners who have always been the NFLPA's core constituents.

It's too bad so much ink is wasted lambasting the the most successful league in sports for doing what it's 32 constituents clearly support while it goes unnoticed that the NFLPA never even asks it's 2500 odd rank and file constituents what they really want or think. They should have to vote - as they did to ratify the CBA - before committing millions to lawsuits that will never benefit 99% of them even if they even had an iceberg's chance in hell in prevailing. I bet that vast silent majority would much prefer to see their money being better spent...on them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Judge Berrigan orders a settlement conference between NFL, players on the bounty and defamation matters, set for July 23 in New Orleans.

https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/statuses/221285301887311873

NFLPA's suit against the NFL was also transferred to Judge Berrigan, and consolidated with the Vilma defamation suit.

https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/statuses/221289870583275521

 

[DaBruinz]

https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/statuses/221285301887311873



https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/statuses/221289870583275521

Thanks for the Updates, Deus. Still think they both should be tossed since the CBA covers this sort of thing and it is something that the Players agreed to..

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks for the Updates, Deus. Still think they both should be tossed since the CBA covers this sort of thing and it is something that the Players agreed to..

It should be a pretty easy case for the judge to decide:

1.) Is the CBA a fair and valid contract?

2.) Was the procedure carried out in proper accordance with the fair and valid CBA?


The first will be a slam dunk win for the league, because the players were stupid enough to sign the deal, but weren't stupid enough to get hosed to the point where the deal is considered too onerous.

The second will mostly involve a look at potential violations of the contractual language (i.e. time required for presenting evidence, etc...). It's going to be very difficult for the players to prove that they weren't getting a 'fair' shake with regards to actions/lack of actions on their end when they were deliberately declining the opportunity to take part in the proceedings.

Of course, I was foolish enough to think that the individual mandate being patently unconstitutional would be sufficient reason for it being ruled unconstitutional, so I make no bets at this point.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It should be a pretty easy case for the judge to decide:

1.) Is the CBA a fair and valid contract?

2.) Was the procedure carried out in proper accordance with the fair and valid CBA?


The first will be a slam dunk win for the league, because the players were stupid enough to sign the deal, but weren't stupid enough to get hosed to the point where the deal is considered too onerous.

The second will mostly involve a look at potential violations of the contractual language (i.e. time required for presenting evidence, etc...). It's going to be very difficult for the players to prove that they weren't getting a 'fair' shake with regards to actions/lack of actions on their end when they were deliberately declining the opportunity to take part in the proceedings.

Of course, I was foolish enough to think that the individual mandate being patently unconstitutional would be sufficient reason for it being ruled unconstitutional, so I make no bets at this point.

Agreed.

Just read of a MA judge's ruling that a blogger can't post the facts about a MA official's daughter who hit & ran and served zero time . Judge ruled his blogging was "harassment". Completely contrary to the fundamental first amendment. Point being, judges sometimes rule oblivious or contrary to law, as you cited. Thus the appeal process...excepting SCOTUS of course.

 

[Why?PJ]

Agreed.

Just read of a MA judge's ruling that a blogger can't post the facts about a MA official's daughter who hit & ran and served zero time . Judge ruled his blogging was "harassment". Completely contrary to the fundamental first amendment. Point being, judges sometimes rule oblivious or contrary to law, as you cited. Thus the appeal process...excepting SCOTUS of course.

dumb blogger. that is why you have an anonymous blog linked through tor. if no one can find you no one can sue you.

 

[DaBruinz]

Agreed.

Just read of a MA judge's ruling that a blogger can't post the facts about a MA official's daughter who hit & ran and served zero time . Judge ruled his blogging was "harassment". Completely contrary to the fundamental first amendment. Point being, judges sometimes rule oblivious or contrary to law, as you cited. Thus the appeal process...excepting SCOTUS of course.

What do you expect from a Mass Judge? Clearly he's incompetent. Otherwise he'd have realized that the blogger was doing what papers do. Report news. DUH..

That is a ruling that will get overturned on appeal. And I don't find it surprising in the least that a judge ruled completely contrary to the Fundamental First Amendment. People have butchered and bastardized the First Amendment ever since they expanded the meaning from "Congress shall make no rule or law" to mean that "Our Country's heritage doesn't mean anything and there can be no 'religious' markings on/in any public building/property" .