Jonathan Vilma suing Roger Goodell for defamation

[BradyFTW!]

You have to be kidding? You want the thugs like Vilma to take
over NFL football? What Vilma is banking on is that he and the
other 22-27 liars can overcome Williams' testimony.

High standard of proof + discovery process = assuming that Goodell didn't maliciously lie, he'll be fine. If he did, then that should be exposed in court and he should be fired. It has nothing to do with I want, beyond the fact that I want the facts of the case to be as public as possible.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I have a problem with it because he already has enough money for he and his family to be set for life. He has made over $30 million dollars already in his career. How in the hell has it jeopardized his ability to make a living? Seriously, if making over $30 million isn't enough to make a living on for you and your kids then the majority of us are screwed. A family rigt now is fortunate to have two workings parents that are clearing over $160k for the year while raising their family.

I have no problem with the reputation part.

Apparently you're a bit confused on what "make a living" means. If he would otherwise be able to earn income, but is unable to because Goodell defamed him (this is what's being argued) then you're arguing against a simple, objective fact. You might as well be arguing over how wet water is.

 

[Frezo]

Apparently you're a bit confused on what "make a living" means. If he would otherwise be able to earn income, but is unable to because Goodell defamed him (this is what's being argued) then you're arguing against a simple, objective fact. You might as well be arguing over how wet water is.

Wouldn't Vilma have to offer some kind of evidence that there would be a loss of future earnings? NFL GMs don't seem to have issues hiring legal malcontents.

 

[BAM!]

Apparently you're a bit confused on what "make a living" means. If he would otherwise be able to earn income, but is unable to because Goodell defamed him (this is what's being argued) then you're arguing against a simple, objective fact. You might as well be arguing over how wet water is.

The wording his lawyer used is poor at best.It is way too broad. If it's about his salary being chopped for the year then he should've said something like "unlawfully suspended the players pay without providing the necessary proof to enact such a penalty."

I can't stand it when people talk about a millionaires hardships in suchthe a waymeeting when there are so many people fighting to put scraps on their table for their family.

 

[Pujo]

The wording his lawyer used is poor at best.It is way too broad. If it's about his salary being chopped for the year then he should've said something like "unlawfully suspended the players pay without providing the necessary proof to enact such a penalty."

I can't stand it when people talk about a millionaires hardships in suchthe a waymeeting when there are so many people fighting to put scraps on their table for their family.

He can't sue about the suspension as easily because things like that are covered by the terms of the CBA which defines an arbitration process. Defamation, though, is a tort and he's entitled to relief if he can prove it.

A hardship for him obviously isn't the same as a hardship for a poor person, but that's not relevant. If he can prove the defamation, and successfully argue that he lost X amount as a result, he's entitled to X amount in actual damages plus whatever punitive damages the jury decides to award.

More to the point, if Goodell actually doesn't actually have good bounty evidence, Vilma would have a damn good reason to be genuinely pissed. And if Goodell didn't lie and really has evidence against Vilma, the suit won't be going far anyway. I think the suit's good because it will hopefully put the evidence out in the open, and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Reckedtrek]

It's ex-jet vs. ex-jet... who cares who wins as long as there's lots of damage done to both Vilma AND Goodell.

 

[DaBruinz]

Apparently you're a bit confused on what "make a living" means. If he would otherwise be able to earn income, but is unable to because Goodell defamed him (this is what's being argued) then you're arguing against a simple, objective fact. You might as well be arguing over how wet water is.

The problem is that the idea that Vilma won't be able to make a living going forward is BS. He's under suspension right now. He's got a binding contract. And if he honestly believes that no one will sign him next year when he's a free agent, then he's dumber than a rotted fence post..

 

[Pujo]

The problem is that the idea that Vilma won't be able to make a living going forward is BS. He's under suspension right now. He's got a binding contract. And if he honestly believes that no one will sign him next year when he's a free agent, then he's dumber than a rotted fence post..

If he can actually prove his case in court, even if he ultimately gets $1 in damages for his trouble, he will have so thoroughly discredited Goodell's evidence that it could cause serious problems for the commissioner... at least some backtracking of discipline and shortening of suspensions may be required as part of damage control. If Vilma is telling the truth, the suit is a good idea. If Goodell is, then there's no point.

 

[peterforpats]

i read this board and am amazed at the hate directed at goodell- i suspect because of tapegate. he did the right thing in that case and he is doing the correct things now. if you have been warned not to engage in certain behavior and you do it anyway, you deserve the hammer. he is presiding over the #1 sport in this country and it is getting bigger every year. he walks a mine field of public opinion and still the game prospers. the only sport i even give a damn about is football and the pats and this man is doing a fine job. in the end, it will be the players and the union that does more damage to themselves than anything goodell will do to them.

 

[Pujo]

i read this board and am amazed at the hate directed at goodell- i suspect because of tapegate. he did the right thing in that case and he is doing the correct things now. if you have been warned not to engage in certain behavior and you do it anyway, you deserve the hammer. he is presiding over the #1 sport in this country and it is getting bigger every year. he walks a mine field of public opinion and still the game prospers. the only sport i even give a damn about is football and the pats and this man is doing a fine job. in the end, it will be the players and the union that does more damage to themselves than anything goodell will do to them.

You're probably right. Certainly if the Saints did what Goodell said they did, they deserve everything they got. I also accept that the Pats created their own problem in 2007. In both cases, though, I would have liked the process to be more transparent. At least the accused parties should be entitled to see the evidence against them. The Pats chose not to make waves, but with players being punished this time the burden of proof is going to be a bit higher.

 

[patchick]

The problem is that the idea that Vilma won't be able to make a living going forward is BS. He's under suspension right now. He's got a binding contract. And if he honestly believes that no one will sign him next year when he's a free agent, then he's dumber than a rotted fence post..

DB, this isn't just about making a living as a football player. His complaint talks about the impact on fans and sponsors. I don't think there's any question that his earning potential as an ex-player, from endorsements, as a commentator, etc. has been harmed by the bounty scandal.

(I'm not saying he didn't bring it on himself, of course. Just that the effect on his future earnings is real.)

 

[Joker]

No matter what people think of Goodell as Commissioner, he is a very good lawyer, so I doubt he ever said anything about a player that is legally actionable.

Uh...Roger Goodell is NOT A LAWYER...for the 10,000th time...he got his degree in economics..that is IT...this canard has been posted and reposted on threads here all month.

Roger Goodell is NOT a lawyer...in fact a cursory search will reveal quotes from Goodell that he cannot STAND lawyers...that is quite a stretch apart form declaring "Roger Goodell is a lawyer" to open a post.

HERE is a letter from a law school graduate TO Goodell asking him pointedly WHY he seems to HATE LAWYERS...

Letter to Roger Goodell from a Law Student and Sports Fan | Sports Fans Coalition

If anyone does not believe me, just call the ProJo or Herald sports departments RIGHT NOW and ask THEM if Roger Goodell is a lawyer...he is NOT...and no matter how many idiots from Minnesota and Detroit keep referring to him as such, it still does not change this FACT...HE IS NOT A LAWYER

 

[ausbacker]

Uh...Roger Goodell is NOT A LAWYER...for the 10,000th time...he got his degree in economics..that is IT...this canard has been posted and reposted on threads here all month.

Roger Goodell is NOT a lawyer...in fact a cursory search will reveal quotes from Goodell that he cannot STAND lawyers...that is quite a stretch apart form declaring "Roger Goodell is a lawyer" to open a post.

HERE is a letter from a law school graduate TO Goodell asking him pointedly WHY he seems to HATE LAWYERS...

Letter to Roger Goodell from a Law Student and Sports Fan*|*Sports Fans Coalition

If anyone does not believe me, just call the ProJo or Herald sports departments RIGHT NOW and ask THEM if Roger Goodell is a lawyer...he is NOT...and no matter how many idiots from Minnesota and Detroit keep referring to him as such, it still does not change this FACT...HE IS NOT A LAWYER

Everything I've read states he's an Economics graduate. The secondary point is I don't care that Goodell holds a contentious position toward the legal profession.

 

[Joker]

Goodell got his bachelor degree in economics from Washington and Jefferson College in Pennsylvania ...in 1981...that is THE Washington and Jefferson COLLEGE that is so famous no one has ever heard of it..strictly. a liberal arts diploma mill.

what IS funny is EVERY link to the Jeremy Schaap/Roger Goodell interview done on ESPN has been taken down...I just clicked through at least 20 direct links to this interview...every one has been censored...trying to find the WRITTEN transscript with Goodell's actual quotes about how he feels about the legal profession...funny thing is,I have no previous written transcript to compare with,like I did with Goodell's work history, which WAS edited AFTER I blew the whistle on him being an intern for the Jets...and just as an update of sorts, I sent a written request ,after being denied a confirmation by telephone, to NFL offices asking for specifics regarding this post facto edit of the Commisioner's work history...to date, no reply......no removal of the preposterous edit.....no admissions or denials.

We may have thought a totalitarian regime could never work out in the open in a free society such as ours...we were wrong.

 

[Fencer]

2004: $230,000 Signing Bonus: $6.03 million
2005: $305,000
2006: $667,500
2007: $750,000
2008: $4,097,500
2009: $3,300,000; $17.2 million guaranteed; Signing Bonus: $6 million
2010: $4,000,000
2011: $5,130,000

This is what Vilma has been paid over the course of the years... it totals over $30M! I have a MAJOR problem with the bolded part of Vilmas' lawer's statement: "By making these false and public statements, he has significantly harmed Jonathan's reputation and ability to make a living."

FU rich F'n F's!

I don't see your point. Vilma's legal claims don't have a "poor impoverished me" subtext like, for example, Ty Law's "feed my family" comment did.

 

[patfanken]

It makes no sense to argue about whether Goodell is a lawyer or not. What we all know is that he has as much legal firepower at his disposal as anyone in the country. Say what you want about Bountygate. What you cannot say was Goodell made a knee jerk decision. The investigation was carried out over a few years. Deciding what punishments were appropriate took months. I only wish what happened in 2007 was the result of such a well thought out approach. The point is that Goodell took his time throughout all of this. I have to believe that he covered his legal bases before acting.

Vilma's suit is nothing more than a desperate action by a player who was fast losing his effectiveness on the field. His major strength at this point was communications. He was fast becoming the Saints version of James Sanders. He was no longer worth the 4-5MM he was due to get. Without the suspension he very well could have be an cap cut, or at best a candidate for a restructure. So his suit makes sense to him. There is no downside, except his legal expenses. Its simply a shot in the dark, and some PR

 

[Joker]

It makes no sense to argue about whether Goodell is a lawyer or not.


please tell me you didn't direct this at me...if you did all I have to say is I'm STATING A FACT...if you are serious in your contention that it makes no sense to state FACT refuting a total LIE then I'm at a loss for words.

I guess it's OK to just walk up to you on the street and rob you...and when you try to have me arrested I'll just say that I didn't rob you....no sense arguing that, huh?

as for the rest of your post, I AM in agreement for the most part. I was never on either side of an argument that he was or wasn't doing his due diligence, only that using the FABRICATION that he is a lawyer is,in fact ,WRONG....

 

[pherein]

High standard of proof + discovery process = assuming that Goodell didn't maliciously lie, he'll be fine. If he did, then that should be exposed in court and he should be fired. It has nothing to do with I want, beyond the fact that I want the facts of the case to be as public as possible.

agreed, nothing else matters about Vilmas case. Lets see the facts.
We all know they have nothing, because we gave them all the evidence they have. Vilma's lawyers know exactly what Goodell has.

Beyond that it should be public, and the full hatred of the Saints actions open for display. Goodell and the NFL has done nothing to keep this silent, and bring it up every week. Time they proved it.

 

[UK_Pat37]

New Orleans Saints' Jonathan Vilma sues commissioner Roger Goodell for defamation - ESPN

Relevant quotes:



All that I can say to this is: good. I'm glad to see someone standing up to Goodell, and if the facts aren't in Vilma's favor, then that will likely come out soon enough anyways. Vilma must be pretty confident in his case, I would think, to expose himself to the discovery process. Most potential outcomes of this lawsuit are good for us, as NFL and Patriots fans.

Good?

Vilma is going to crash and burn in this case and further taint his name.

No one needs to stand up to Goodell at all.

 

[Gumby]

2004: $230,000 Signing Bonus: $6.03 million
2005: $305,000
2006: $667,500
2007: $750,000
2008: $4,097,500
2009: $3,300,000; $17.2 million guaranteed; Signing Bonus: $6 million
2010: $4,000,000
2011: $5,130,000

This is what Vilma has been paid over the course of the years... it totals over $30M! I have a MAJOR problem with the bolded part of Vilmas' lawer's statement: "By making these false and public statements, he has significantly harmed Jonathan's reputation and ability to make a living."

FU rich F'n F's!

The problem is that the idea that Vilma won't be able to make a living going forward is BS. He's under suspension right now. He's got a binding contract. And if he honestly believes that no one will sign him next year when he's a free agent, then he's dumber than a rotted fence post.

Not sure why you guys have such rage against wealthy who earned it through success in their chosen career field; but it is clouding rational judgement.

Maybe you should just take some of that jealousy and channel the energy into your own career.

Obviously if the statements by Goodell about Vilma were overblown it has an impact on FUTURE EARNINGS. It will affect both endorsement opportunities as Patchick stated and also any future salary offers (maybe not so obviously-see below). You can't reject someones arguments on impact to his FUTURE just based on that IN THE PAST he has earned enough for guys like you and me to live on for the rest of our lives.

Any future team (NO or other) is going to look at Vilma as a the NFL player scapegoat for 'bounty-whatever'. As such they will figure into their salary offers that referees & the commish will be watching him more closely generating more flags and potential suspensions. Or at least that his style of play may be affected by tryign not to appear like he is head-hunting. So a team will go sign a guy who maybe 90% of Vilma but who will be there 100% of the season -rather than sitting out suspensions.

All that said: I find it difficult to find which party in the lawsuit/conflict I despise more. (but default goes to Goodell). A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!!!!