The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

1niksder wrote:

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admitted that the stipulation if effective would be fatal to the new collusion claim, contends that the stipulation was superseded by a subsequent order entered by Judge David Doty.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.

“There was no collusion,” Greg Aiello, the NFL’s senior vice president of communications, said in a written statement. “There was no agreement. These claims are totally unfounded.”

UK Skins Fan wrote:

“There was no collusion,” Greg Aiello, the NFL’s senior vice president of communications, said in a written statement. “There was no agreement. These claims are totally unfounded.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-players-union-sues-the-league-alleging-collusion-on-salaries-in-2010/2012/05/23/gJQA9opclU_story.html

So, Mr Aiello, that presumably means that ALL teams were free to spend whatever they wanted to during the 2010 season? Or did every single team (except the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints and Raiders) spontaneously and independently decide that they would spend their money as if there WERE a salary cap in place? That's remarkable.

So, there was NO collusion. Therefore, no agreement to artificially restrict spending on salaries in 2010? Excellent. So we just need our $36m back please, and we can forget the whole thing. And you might want to consider giving the NFLPA a billion or two as well. Then they might be able to afford some decent legal brains of their own to prevent signing up to this sort of stupidity in the future.

Deadskins wrote:

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.

Q: Will this help the Redskins and Cowboys get their money back?

A: I can't imagine how. The teams agreed to abide by Burbank's ruling Tuesday, and if the union were to succeed here, the players would be awarded damages. It's possible, if it's determined that there was collusion and the Redskins and Cowboys did not engage in it, that those two teams could be exempted somehow from having to pay the damages. But I don't see how they get their cap money back as a result of this.

The suit claims that the collusion cost the players “up to $1 billion, if not substantially more” and is looking for compensatory damages of $3 billion or more. It does not specifically ask for the salary cap dollars to be restored to the Cowboys and Redskins.

rskin72 wrote:The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it will be shot down as the NFLPA agreed not to sue basically for anything past or present when they signed this current CBA. Think the only potential saving grace for them would be that they have a supposedly friendly judge in Doty to hear this.

riggofan wrote:

rskin72 wrote:The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it will be shot down as the NFLPA agreed not to sue basically for anything past or present when they signed this current CBA. Think the only potential saving grace for them would be that they have a supposedly friendly judge in Doty to hear this.

I think you're right. Sounds like the NFL covered themselves pretty well. Its really just straight up GANGSTER the way they played everybody. If you look at the whole story you can start to see why the Redskins were totally unaware that the penalty was coming until just hours before free agency started. They made De Smith an offer he couldn't refuse, whacked the Skins, whacked the Boys, and buttoned up all the loopholes leading back to them. Its like the last fifteen minutes of The Godfather. Somebody should bring them up on RICO charges!

It depresses me to listen to the average fan on the radio or posting on ESPN or whatever today. I would say most of them don't support the NFLPA's lawsuit and generally think the players are just being greedy. Its a hard topic for people to understand.

Deadskins wrote: My question is: what kind of lawyer for the NFLPA allows that language about known and unknown into the contract?

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote: My question is: what kind of lawyer for the NFLPA allows that language about known and unknown into the contract?

Answer:
There are TWO of 'em... apparently one is smarter than the other...

riggofan wrote:There was a lawyer from the NFLPA on the Sports Junkies show this morning talking about this case. I gotta say he didn't sound like the sharpest lawyer ever. Its kind of a broad judgement to make based on a radio interview, but he had pretty much no answer for why the lawsuit should be allowed to continue in spite of the "known and unknown" clause.

That's kind of the most important fact of the case right now, isn't it? I'd think they would have some sort of answer for that, especially when speaking to the press.

The NFLPA has released a statement announcing that, on Thursday, the players filed a brief in response to the NFL’s effort to defeat the collusion case by focusing not on the merits of the claim but the timeliness of the filing. Put as simply as possible, the NFL contends that the collusion claims were waived; the NFLPA understandably and predictably claims they weren’t.

The collusion claim was sparked by the cap penalties imposed by the NFL on the Redskins and Cowboys for violating the “spirit” of the salary cap in 2010.

“In its filing, the NFLPA informed the Court that in March 2012, once the NFL and Owners believed they were in the clear, they imposed punishments on two teams — the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys — that failed to fully honor the Owners’ illegal conspiracy to collude during the uncapped 2010 season,” the NFLPA says. “Public comments by Owners in March 2012 about those punishments exposed what had been, until then, a carefully concealed agreement to violate the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. But now, confronted with a damages claim for their admitted conspiracy, the Owners desperately seek to find some legal argument to shield them from redress for the willful violations of the anti-collusion provisions of the Reggie White antitrust settlement agreement.”

1niksder wrote:NFLPA files new brief in collusion case

The NFLPA has released a statement announcing that, on Thursday, the players filed a brief in response to the NFL’s effort to defeat the collusion case by focusing not on the merits of the claim but the timeliness of the filing. Put as simply as possible, the NFL contends that the collusion claims were waived; the NFLPA understandably and predictably claims they weren’t.

The collusion claim was sparked by the cap penalties imposed by the NFL on the Redskins and Cowboys for violating the “spirit” of the salary cap in 2010.

“In its filing, the NFLPA informed the Court that in March 2012, once the NFL and Owners believed they were in the clear, they imposed punishments on two teams — the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys — that failed to fully honor the Owners’ illegal conspiracy to collude during the uncapped 2010 season,” the NFLPA says. “Public comments by Owners in March 2012 about those punishments exposed what had been, until then, a carefully concealed agreement to violate the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. But now, confronted with a damages claim for their admitted conspiracy, the Owners desperately seek to find some legal argument to shield them from redress for the willful violations of the anti-collusion provisions of the Reggie White antitrust settlement agreement.”

1niksder wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-union-league-odds-over-230023441--nfl.html

Deadskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-union-league-odds-over-230023441--nfl.html

Fixed it for you.

SkinsJock wrote:Thanks 1niksder - doesn't sound like the there's much of a chance of this being a factor at all

when they agreed to the CBA, the players agreed to Godahell being able to do just about anything he wants

I also think, from reading into this that the Redskins and Cowboys cap penalties have ZERO chance of changing


what a mess - I hope the league finds a way to give Mara and his cronies some payback on this as well

ACW wrote:Am I the only one that'll be cheering for the Cowboys next Thursday?

Deadskins wrote:

ACW wrote:Am I the only one that'll be cheering for the Cowboys next Thursday?

Other than Cowpie fans, yes. The Pies play the Dolphins on Wednesday.