NFLPA files lawsuit against NFL for collusion

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:08 pm

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

The mess just got messier.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:12 pm

In the filing, it is alleged that the NFL and owners furthered their concealment by “approving the very player contracts that enabled the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints to exceed the secret, collusive salary cap” and, prior to and on March 11, 2012, failed to disclose to the players or the NFLPA “that the true reason for the then-proposed reallocation was to penalize the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints for not fully abiding by the Collusive Agreement.”

Hmmm, good luck to the NFLPA in arguing that they had no idea WHAT the reason for the cap reallocations was!

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:14 pm

NIIICCEEEE.... LMAO

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:23 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:
In the filing, it is alleged that the NFL and owners furthered their concealment by “approving the very player contracts that enabled the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints to exceed the secret, collusive salary cap” and, prior to and on March 11, 2012, failed to disclose to the players or the NFLPA “that the true reason for the then-proposed reallocation was to penalize the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints for not fully abiding by the Collusive Agreement.”

Hmmm, good luck to the NFLPA in arguing that they had no idea WHAT the reason for the cap reallocations was!

That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:27 pm

Here's some light reading; the suit in full:

https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaReso ... es/pdf.pdf

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:29 pm

WOW. This is an incredible story.

Seriously, the NFL set out to punish the Cowboys and Redskins and instead probably shot themselves in the foot. No wonder the Redskins said they weren't going to pursue the case. The NFLPA is doing it for them.

The story is hilarious.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... pped-year/

The NFL is claiming that they didn't conspire to have a secret salary cap while at the same time punishing two teams for going over the secret salary cap. Awesome.

I don't see how this lawsuit helps the Redskins recoup the salary cap penalty. But its certainly a kick in the pants for Goodell and Mara.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:31 pm

So does this go before arbitration or does this go to real-life court? :lol:

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:32 pm

Deadskins wrote:That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

I know what you're saying, but look at the timing of how Goodell strong armed the NFLPA. They literally came to them within days of free agency and said we're not raising the salary cap unless you agree to this penalty for the Redskins/Cowboys. They were over a barrel.

Deadskins wrote:My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

I don't think so. Burbank didn't say the Redskins didn't have a legitimate claim. He said according to the CBA they didn't have the right to go to arbitration in the first place. See the difference?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:35 pm

riggofan wrote:I don't see how this lawsuit helps the Redskins recoup the salary cap penalty.

If the NFL loses, I don't see how the courts could let the reallocation penalties stand.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:38 pm

Deadskins wrote:
riggofan wrote:I don't see how this lawsuit helps the Redskins recoup the salary cap penalty.

If the NFL loses, I don't see how the courts could let the reallocation penalties stand.

That's a good point.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:39 pm

riggofan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

I know what you're saying, but look at the timing of how Goodell strong armed the NFLPA. They literally came to them within days of free agency and said we're not raising the salary cap unless you agree to this penalty for the Redskins/Cowboys. They were over a barrel.

Deadskins wrote:My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

I don't think so. Burbank didn't say the Redskins didn't have a legitimate claim. He said according to the CBA they didn't have the right to go to arbitration in the first place. See the difference?

I see the difference, but I don't think you do. What Burbank said (and why the NFL asked for the dismissal), was that because the NFLPA agreed to the reallocations, then the Skins and Pies didn't have the right to the arbitration under the CBA. But if the NFLPA really didn't agree, as is obviously the case from this suit, does that change things? I don't know.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:01 pm

Didn't the NFLPA agree not to sue for collusion in the new CBA?

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:40 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't the NFLPA agree not to sue for collusion in the new CBA?

By Dan Graziano

As a condition of the end of the lockout last year, the players agreed to drop all pending litigation against the league, and the league claims the agreement clearly covered litigation for offenses both "known and unknown." The union will argue that the impositions of the penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys brought previously unknown information to light, and that they never agreed not to sue over this specific behavior. But if that "known and unknown" clause is legit, it's hard to see how they have a case. One point to note, however: This suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, under the jurisdiction of Judge David Doty, who has leaned so heavily in favor of the players in past disputes that the owners made it a point to remove arbitration matters from his jurisdiction in the new collective bargaining agreement. It was arbitration Stephen Burbank, historically more friendly to the owners, who threw out the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint Tuesday.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:02 pm

Love this:

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.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... penalties/

Deadskins - I see what you're saying about the arbitration ruling. Giving me a headache trying to wrap my head around it though!

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:14 pm

What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...

... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division...

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:16 pm

An agreement to drop all litigation for any offences "known and unknown"?!! Seriously, how does an organisation purporting to call itself a players union allow itself to sign up to this nonsense?!

I can't help feeling that the NFL is still bullet proofed against this action, but we'll see. I would LOVE to see John Mara appearing in court, wriggling and squirming like a maggot on a hook.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:17 pm

Countertrey wrote:What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...

... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division...

Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror".

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:23 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...

... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division...

Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror".

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are slimey, indeed... but can't hold a slime candle to the NFLPA. Not only are they supremely slimey, but they are incompetent at the same time...

emoses14 · Post by **emoses14** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:37 pm

Countertrey wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...

... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division...

Yes indeed. It's us, the Cowboys and the NFLPA against the world! Lol - a bit like having to call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan allies in the "war on terror".
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are slimey, indeed... but can't hold a slime candle to the NFLPA. Not only are they supremely slimey, but they are incompetent at the same time...

I don't know. Depending on how this plays out, it could bear that the NFLPA actually was playing chess to the NFL's checkers when they signed on for that penalty "butt intercourse." I don't know all the details, cause i've not read their filing, nor the CBA to find out precisely what degree of release they gave the NFL for causes of action arising prior to its execution. But if they didn't relese the universe (which is not really all that uncommon, actually) then this is chess type action on their part.

So long as they didn't agree not to bring suits like this, not sure how this makes them slimey.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:41 pm

They are playing both ends... you may not find duplicitous behavior slimey... but for most of us... that is the very definition of it.

rskin72 · Post by **rskin72** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:22 pm

So the NFLPA has jumped on the litigation bandwagon. While this may bring to light the collusion ...er.....gentleman's agreement between owners for the 2010 season.....where does it leave the Skins and Boyz concerning this penalty? Our teams stated that they were moving on after the Burbank ruling.....so, if the courts decide that the NFLPA can pursue this case (i.e. that the CBA does not preclude this suit), and the NFLPA wins, does this mean that Snyder and Jones could also revisit their appeal of the salary cap smack-down?

So.....did someone in one of the organizations "leak" some info to the NFLPA concerning this? I wonder.

Personally, I would just like to see Mara taken down several notches....he was so self-righteous when announcing that he thought the cap penalities were just, and we were lucky not to have lost draft picks as well....hope he ends up regretting the day he made that statement.

Finally....who will be the first member of Congress to demand a hearing over this issue?? Maybe a Va or Tx congressman or senator??

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:32 pm

rskin72 wrote:So the NFLPA has jumped on the litigation bandwagon. While this may bring to light the collusion ...er.....gentleman's agreement between owners for the 2010 season.....where does it leave the Skins and Boyz concerning this penalty? Our teams stated that they were moving on after the Burbank ruling.....so, if the courts decide that the NFLPA can pursue this case (i.e. that the CBA does not preclude this suit), and the NFLPA wins, does this mean that Snyder and Jones could also revisit their appeal of the salary cap smack-down?

They won't have to revisit. If a court rules in the NFLPA's favor, then the penalties would have to be rescinded as a consequence.

rskin72 wrote:So.....did someone in one of the organizations "leak" some info to the NFLPA concerning this? I wonder.

There was no need to leak anything, Mara did that himself. But it's not like the collusion wasn't obvious from the start.

rskin72 wrote:Personally, I would just like to see Mara taken down several notches....he was so self-righteous when announcing that he thought the cap penalities were just, and we were lucky not to have lost draft picks as well....hope he ends up regretting the day he made that statement.

I'm sure he already regrets it. Personally, I'm loving it. :lol:

rskin72 wrote:Finally....who will be the first member of Congress to demand a hearing over this issue?? Maybe a Va or Tx congressman or senator??

That's the $64,000 question.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:43 pm

Countertrey wrote:What a bunch of duplicitous slime the NFLPA are...

... and, congrats, John Mara, for screwing over the whole league so that you could "handicap" two teams in your division...

Bingo - thanks C'trey

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:10 pm

The NFLPA conducted a conference call Wednesday afternoon to address questions regarding the collusion case that was filed earlier in the day against the NFL. The 45-minute discussion focused at times on the language of a “Stipulation of Dismissal” submitted by the lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA upon conclusion of the Reggie White litigation in August 2011.

The stipulation plainly states that the parties agreed to a dismissal of all claims, “known and unknown, whether pending or not,” including but not limited to “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.” NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, who at one pointed admitted that the stipulation if effective would be fatal to the new collusion claim, contends that the stipulation was superseded by a subsequent order entered by Judge David Doty.

Predictably, the NFL disagrees. “A stipulation of dismissal on behalf of the union and the White class was signed by Kessler and filed in the Court,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email. “The union is bound by that document.”

We’re now trying to get our hands (or at least our eyes) on the Doty order to which Kessler referred. Though the language of the order signed by Judge Doty won’t win the new collusion case, it could quickly kill it.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:11 pm

man oh man - this is going to get messy :lol:

there is a lot of bad things happening for the NFL executive committee to try and get a grip on and to attempt to spin this their way

this could be a really big bun fight if they're not careful