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

Vilma, Hargrove, Smith, and Fujita all planning to appeal.


Scott Fujita's 3-game suspension will cost him about $645K, based on $3.65m 2012 salary.

Will Smith Will Smith will lose only $206K, during his 4-game suspension would've lost $1.75M due to suspension. On March 1, he restructured his contract, converted 7M into bonus and left salary of 825k to "save Saints cap space".

Some are paying more than others

Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma is suspended for the entire 2012 season, and his season-long suspension actually begins right now: He’s banished from the team’s facilities effective immediately. But he didn’t find out about that from the NFL. He found out on TV.

That’s the word from Saints quarterback Chase Daniel, who wrote on Twitter that he was there with Vilma when the word came down, and Vilma learned at the same time as millions of NFL fans.

Now that was just wrong

As a player & agent advocate, I have no real problem with the length of the suspensions. I have more of a problem with the appeals process.

In my view, there should be an oversight committee that reviews these matters and hands out the initial punishment. Say, a 3-5 person panel including league officials, former players, arbitrators etc that does this and only this.

Then, if the player doesn't like the punishment, he could appeal to Goodell who would have the power to uphold, or modify it.

That would give Goodell ultimate authority (which seems to be something that he has to have) but it would also ensure that there is some level of fairness and objectivity in the initial punishment and the process overall.


This is an area where the PA dropped the ball in this CBA. The players were so focused on the revenue, that they gave in on several of these other issues that actually impact players even more.

The Hogster wrote:As a player & agent advocate, I have no real problem with the length of the suspensions. I have more of a problem with the appeals process.

In my view, there should be an oversight committee that reviews these matters and hands out the initial punishment. Say, a 3-5 person panel including league officials, former players, arbitrators etc that does this and only this.

Then, if the player doesn't like the punishment, he could appeal to Goodell who would have the power to uphold, or modify it.

That would give Goodell ultimate authority (which seems to be something that he has to have) but it would also ensure that there is some level of fairness and objectivity in the initial punishment and the process overall.


This is an area where the PA dropped the ball in this CBA. The players were so focused on the revenue, that they gave in on several of these other issues that actually impact players even more.

First bounty battle could relate to who handles the appeals

The Hogster wrote:As a player & agent advocate, I have no real problem with the length of the suspensions. I have more of a problem with the appeals process.

In my view, there should be an oversight committee that reviews these matters and hands out the initial punishment. Say, a 3-5 person panel including league officials, former players, arbitrators etc that does this and only this.

Then, if the player doesn't like the punishment, he could appeal to Goodell who would have the power to uphold, or modify it.

That would give Goodell ultimate authority (which seems to be something that he has to have) but it would also ensure that there is some level of fairness and objectivity in the initial punishment and the process overall.


This is an area where the PA dropped the ball in this CBA. The players were so focused on the revenue, that they gave in on several of these other issues that actually impact players even more.

+1 I couldn,t have agreed with you more they need people for just this and this alone..

the players are the ones to be blamed ..it got overlooked ..

just a reminder

the NFL players, as part of the CBA, agreed to EVERYTHING regarding the way that Goodell 'managed' things in the current agreement

the players did NOT want a committee to review their behaviour
IF THEY HAD, it would have been a part of the CBA

there are only a few NFL players that get arrested or get in trouble
the rest of the players (those that do not get in trouble) could care a less about those idiots

the majority of the NFL players were ONLY interested in the money coming to them

they did not try and change ANYTHING to do with the way that the NFL (AND Goodell) manage things


that being said - the union is going to try and fight this ... but

SkinsJock wrote:just a reminder

the NFL players, as part of the CBA, agreed to EVERYTHING regarding the way that Goodell 'managed' things in the current agreement

the players did NOT want a committee to review their behaviour
IF THEY HAD, it would have been a part of the CBA

there are only a few NFL players that get arrested or get in trouble
the rest of the players (those that do not get in trouble) could care a less about those idiots

the majority of the NFL players were ONLY interested in the money coming to them

they did not try and change ANYTHING to do with the way that the NFL (AND Goodell) manage things


that being said - the union is going to try and fight this ... but

Obviously the players didn't really have a say, as it was their elected representatives who cut the deal. Sure, they voted on it, but I doubt many, if any, of them actually read the CBA, much less understood its ramifications. And, as it's been made abundantly clear, the current union leadership is in the NFL's back pocket.

^^ - I hear you - I'm only saying the players cannot have EVERYTHING their way

the CBA was 'voted' on by the players - 'they' had the right to make sure certain things were included ...

the players are 'responsible' for accepting the good with the bad parts of the agreement

same with the owners


now we're not dealing with society's 'laws' here - this is the NFL after all ...

can you imagine having people putting a bounty on a person or group of people?

those people would be doing some serious time in a pen ...

all these guys are getting is a suspension

it's actually a little surprising that there seems to be a number of players that don't think that there's all that much wrong with Vilma actually having money in his hand and offering it to players as a reward for taking out another player

and now the fight is on


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike- ... ounty-case

as the man indicates - this could get VERY interesting

Godahell has his hands full with the legal guys on this

and more from Josh Katzowitz

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-o ... d-his-mind

GODdell needed to be checked...

SkinsJock wrote:just a reminder

the NFL players, as part of the CBA, agreed to EVERYTHING regarding the way that Goodell 'managed' things in the current agreement

the players did NOT want a committee to review their behaviour
IF THEY HAD, it would have been a part of the CBA

there are only a few NFL players that get arrested or get in trouble
the rest of the players (those that do not get in trouble) could care a less about those idiots

the majority of the NFL players were ONLY interested in the money coming to them

they did not try and change ANYTHING to do with the way that the NFL (AND Goodell) manage things


that being said - the union is going to try and fight this ... but

Wrong. The players pushed to take Goodell's power away in handing out these punishments. But, they were rebuffed. Such is life in negotiations. But to say they didn't want another process is factually inaccurate.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/18953261/union-had-no-choice-but-to-give-power-to-goodell

Sources from both sides tell a similar story of those final hours. The union wanted to take away some of Goodell's power over discipline issues and Goodell wanted to keep it. The union pushed for a truly independent arbitration system and focused on eradicating an appeals process where appeals go before Goodell after Goodell is the one who first institutes the punishement. But the NFL refused.

Back and forth they went. No one was giving in. Time was running out.

The biggest question from many in wake of Goodell's punishment of the New Orleans players over the illegal bounty system has been this: why did the union not continue the fight? It's a question even some players have been asking.

The answer is simple. Goodell wasn't giving up that power and if the union wanted it they would have had to sacrifice the season to get it. It's that simple.

So when people say and write that the union collectively bargained the appeals system they despise that is technically true. But it's not totally accurate. A fight would have meant the death of football this year. That's not hyperbole. Goodell wasn't bluffing. Owners would have been hurt by the loss of the season, no question, but players would have been devastated.

We are lucky that this site has so many posters that know what they are doing and can help fans like me get an idea of what is going on

the players may have wanted to curb Goodell's powers but ...
it's obvious that the players were more interested in getting their money than 'helping' the few players that might anger Goodell by their antics or not behaving within the rules set down by the NFL

the CBA as it stands has left the commish with the whip in his hand and he's using it

and this perspective from another source that thinks that the NFL will prevail against the NFLPA's efforts to divert the suspensions

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1896 ... grievances

SkinsJock wrote:and this from a legal person that has some intelligence

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1896 ... grievances

Way to post an article that says nothing to support what you said. You were wrong. It happens--often for you. Get over it.

Just as a reminder... this thread ISN'T smack. Personal attacks, even if veiled as "they" will do nothing more than drag this thread into the sewer. Take it to smack if you have a need to personalize your editorial voice.

Back to topic.

Thanks.

^^ whew

without further ado -

The NFL has announced that they'll be having hearings on the player stuff this Wednesday, May 16th

Godahell is an ass but ...

The owner of the Saints, the former HC and the defensive coach, have basically, by their inaction, admitted to being at fault

The players association was encouraged by the NFL to show anything that would prevent the actions that happened - they did not

now the players want to say that there was nothing going on - one (Vilma) has sued Godahell - ostensibly to force the NFL into revealing they have no evidence

IF evidence is provided by the NFL (and we now hear that the NFL is going to reveal it) then I hope the players get smacked big time for basically lying to all of us & claiming that no player would take out a bounty on another player

IF the evidence is not there, as the player's claim - I hope the NFL gets rid of Goodell for this

Surprise, surprise - the players get to play with The Man


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1925 ... nfls-hands

Godahell gets to do his thing

I will add again - if the Vilma suit for defamation actually results in any 'evidence' being revealed - I hope that Vilma gets what he deserves too

SkinsJock wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Nothing good can come from Congress getting involved

Period.

fixed it for you

+1

SkinsJock wrote:
and this from a legal person that has some intelligence

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1896 ... grievances

Oxymoron?

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:
and this from a legal person that has some intelligence
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1896 ... grievances

Oxymoron?

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:
and this from a legal person that has some intelligence

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1896 ... grievances

Oxymoron?

a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

What?
Oh you weren't asking for a definition?

Ahh, you were making a funny lawyer joke.

Ha. Ha. H. . .

emoses14 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:
and this from a legal person that has some intelligence

Oxymoron?

Ahh, you were making a funny lawyer joke.

Oxymoron?
although both Godahell and De Maurice have no sense of humor they are funny - in the head - like a lot of other lawyers

I think Godahell has a lot of problems here ....

why suspend Suh and Haynesworth for 2 games for what they very obviously did and then give Vilma a season for what he reportedly did?
Haynesworth actually tried to kick a player in the head that was both lying on the ground and not wearing a helmet

The Saints top people must know that what went on there was terribly out of line OR we would be hearing something from Benson, Loomis, Peyton and Williams?

performance incentives involving hurting other players are not technically legal in the NFL but it goes on all the time - what went on there PLUS the lying must be why the punishments were so harsh

but

why the severity of the punishments handed out to the players?

there's a lot more here .... OR ... for Godahell's sake, there had better be