Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

This thread is going to axed if people can't keep religion out of it. Take it to the FFA if you want to discuss it.

This place used to be Jesusguys.com. Pretty sure we can talk about religion if we want to.

Pretty sure if you keep it up the atheists like myself will end up getting it shut down. So stop it and take it to the FFA where it belongs.

ETA: You don't know how hard it is for me to keep my trap shut when I read things like "part of God's plan". I'm in this thread because I want to see if Gordon sues and gets an injunction so I know if I should keep holding him on my bench or cut bait. I'm not here to get into debates about religion, which I undoubtedly will if this line of talk persists.

Edited by (HULK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do judges grant an injuction quickly based upon quick arguements/info, or do they spend time on it?

Network TV makes it seem like they do it if you play tennis with them or somehow humiliate opposing counsel, but I'm not sure thats accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do judges grant an injuction quickly based upon quick arguements/info, or do they spend time on it?

Network TV makes it seem like they do it if you play tennis with them or somehow humiliate opposing counsel, but I'm not sure thats accurate.

Only god knows right now! :kicksrock:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

Thing is False, he doesn't have to win, the Williams' lost, but they played for two years.

#fantasy relevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how everyone thought the Gordon process took "so much longer" than the process should (and was a vital reason why he would beat it), now that the Welker news broke. Seems he got popped in early May and after the appeals process was just officially suspended yesterday. Seems the length of Gordon's process was rather ordinary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how everyone thought the Gordon process took "so much longer" than the process should (and was a vital reason why he would beat it), now that the Welker news broke. Seems he got popped in early May and after the appeals process was just officially suspended yesterday. Seems the length of Gordon's process was rather ordinary.

wasnt gordon popped in january?

leaked at the draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angel.

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

Because these "things" you heard aren't accurate.

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

Employees can be fired/suspended in Ohio, and that's exactly what happened to Gordon; he violated a policy of his employer and was suspended, per the language in the CBA.

The reason no lawsuit has been filed is because they don't really have a shot. If they did, they'd have filed by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

I'm sure there's plenty of things they could potentially argue that we have no idea of.

Or there could be none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

I'm sure there's plenty of things they could potentially argue that we have no idea of.

Or there could be none.

They could argue whatever they want; however, in this situation, they'd need to prove that the arbitrator failed to do his job in order to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

I'm sure there's plenty of things they could potentially argue that we have no idea of.

Or there could be none.

They could argue whatever they want; however, in this situation, they'd need to prove that the arbitrator failed to do his job in order to win.

How is it not possible that they argue that something they presented as evidence was overlooked or not properly taken into account?

We dont know ANYTHING about the case. Just small leaks here and there.

There are plenty of things that could be argued in court, aside from just "arbitrator took too long"

If it's significant enough for a court to want to take a look, Im sure they would.

Again.... there could be zero defenses or reasons to go to court. I have no idea what they'll do.

But Im 100% certain there is more than just one single reason they could go to court.

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

Thing is False, he doesn't have to win, the Williams' lost, but they played for two years.

#fantasy relevant

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angel.

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

Because these "things" you heard aren't accurate.

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

Employees can be fired/suspended in Ohio, and that's exactly what happened to Gordon; he violated a policy of his employer and was suspended, per the language in the CBA.

The reason no lawsuit has been filed is because they don't really have a shot. If they did, they'd have filed by now.

The Browns are his employer, not the NFL. The NFL is the governing body of the league formed by teams and individual owners. This is clearly a case that the NFL has been put in charge of suspensions per the CBA, but as far as his employer? His checks are written by the Browns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt about how legal proceedings work, since he's a lawyer.

But whether or not Gordon has a case to sue, this guy has no idea, because we dont know anything about the case

Soulfly, clearly you are the person who knows it all. The complete humiliation you suffered from how you were completely wrong on every facet of this topic not withstanding.

Here we go again with the "no one knows" stuff. Yup, no one here knows anything, thats only why people were trying to tell you he was going to get suspended for 158 pages and you are in complete denial in every page of it.

Many know stuff about the case, you just wish to ignore it.

Edited by False Start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt about how legal proceedings work, since he's a lawyer.

But whether or not Gordon has a case to sue, this guy has no idea, because we dont know anything about the case

Soulfly, clearly you are the person who knows it all. The complete humiliation you suffered from how you were completely wrong on every facet of this topic not withstanding.

Here we go again with the "no one knows" stuff. Yup, no one here knows anything, thats only why people were trying to tell you he was going to get suspended for 158 pages and you are in complete denial in every page of it.

Many know stuff about the case, you just wish to ignore it.

We know all the evidence they presented?

You being serious or....?

We kno very little about the case aside from a failed test. Pretending otherwise is pretty ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt about how legal proceedings work, since he's a lawyer.

But whether or not Gordon has a case to sue, this guy has no idea, because we dont know anything about the case

Soulfly, clearly you are the person who knows it all. The complete humiliation you suffered from how you were completely wrong on every facet of this topic not withstanding.

Here we go again with the "no one knows" stuff. Yup, no one here knows anything, thats only why people were trying to tell you he was going to get suspended for 158 pages and you are in complete denial in every page of it.

Many know stuff about the case, you just wish to ignore it.

We know all the evidence they presented?

You being serious or....?

We kno very little about the case aside from a failed test. Pretending otherwise is pretty ridiculous

You pretended to know everything about it not so long ago, now that he was suspended now no one knows anything? Weird.

I should ask are you serious? I still find it funny that you still insist on injecting your opinion on anything Gordon since your track record has been abysmal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt about how legal proceedings work, since he's a lawyer.

But whether or not Gordon has a case to sue, this guy has no idea, because we dont know anything about the case

Soulfly, clearly you are the person who knows it all. The complete humiliation you suffered from how you were completely wrong on every facet of this topic not withstanding.

Here we go again with the "no one knows" stuff. Yup, no one here knows anything, thats only why people were trying to tell you he was going to get suspended for 158 pages and you are in complete denial in every page of it.

Many know stuff about the case, you just wish to ignore it.

We know all the evidence they presented?

You being serious or....?

We kno very little about the case aside from a failed test. Pretending otherwise is pretty ridiculous

You pretended to know everything about it not so long ago, now that he was suspended now no one knows anything? Weird.

I should ask are you serious? I still find it funny that you still insist on injecting your opinion on anything Gordon since your track record has been abysmal.

Im really interested in the arbitration notes and evidence presented, since you seem to be in possession of it.

Care to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

I'm pretty sure Josh Gordon's lawyers aren't working on a contingency fee basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

I'm pretty sure Josh Gordon's lawyers aren't working on a contingency fee basis.

Im sure they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

I'm sure there's plenty of things they could potentially argue that we have no idea of.

Or there could be none.

They could argue whatever they want; however, in this situation, they'd need to prove that the arbitrator failed to do his job in order to win.

How is it not possible that they argue that something they presented as evidence was overlooked or not properly taken into account?

We dont know ANYTHING about the case. Just small leaks here and there.

There are plenty of things that could be argued in court, aside from just "arbitrator took too long"

If it's significant enough for a court to want to take a look, Im sure they would.

Again.... there could be zero defenses or reasons to go to court. I have no idea what they'll do.

But Im 100% certain there is more than just one single reason they could go to court.

Under normal circumstances, you can't appeal an arbitration decision for failing to adhere to some legal standard - you need corruption, fraud, or exceeding the authority of the arbitrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

I'm pretty sure Josh Gordon's lawyers aren't working on a contingency fee basis.

Im sure they're not.

Then they get paid by the hour, whether or not they think they have a real shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

I'm pretty sure Josh Gordon's lawyers aren't working on a contingency fee basis.

Im sure they're not.

Then they get paid by the hour, whether or not they think they have a real shot.

I'm more than ok in assuming that Rosenhaus would advise his client in the best possible way in regards to things like this...

you know... being a lawyer and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than ok in assuming that Rosenhaus would advise his client in the best possible way in regards to things like this...

you know... being a lawyer and all.

Somtimes advising someone to file a lawsuit doesn't mean you think they'll win. Especially when you work in a public relations business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than ok in assuming that Rosenhaus would advise his client in the best possible way in regards to things like this...

you know... being a lawyer and all.

Somtimes advising someone to file a lawsuit doesn't mean you think they'll win. Especially when you work in a public relations business.

the sooner gordon gets on the field, the better for Drew.

if he wants to catch a payday off an elite nfl WR, he needs to show/prove his client is worth it and can stay straight.

delaying it further for no legitimate reason would be really poor judgement on Drew's part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than ok in assuming that Rosenhaus would advise his client in the best possible way in regards to things like this...

you know... being a lawyer and all.

Somtimes advising someone to file a lawsuit doesn't mean you think they'll win. Especially when you work in a public relations business.

the sooner gordon gets on the field, the better for Drew.

if he wants to catch a payday off an elite nfl WR, he needs to show/prove his client is worth it and can stay straight.

delaying it further for no legitimate reason would be really poor judgement on Drew's part

Making an argument that he's not at fault here and having his lawsuit dismissed on mostly procedural grounds so that Rosenhaus can make the argument during contract negotiations that this whole thing would never have stood except for the arbitration process is a legitimate reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how everyone thought the Gordon process took "so much longer" than the process should (and was a vital reason why he would beat it), now that the Welker news broke. Seems he got popped in early May and after the appeals process was just officially suspended yesterday. Seems the length of Gordon's process was rather ordinary.

wasnt gordon popped in january?

leaked at the draft

We don't really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit comes today imo. I have no sources or evidence. But that's pretty standard.

If it doesnt come today, does it come at all?

No way he can win this though.

why not?

I wont even pretend to know the legal logistics of it all, but there has to be at least a fair chance that if they take the time and effort of that route, there has to be at least a chance.

Ive read things from "ohio law" to "barred from earning a living" etc etc

if there's no case, then we know even the lawyers think there is no shot. if they go for it, then they obviously have an angle

doesnt mean theyll be successful, but theyd think they have a shot at least

I'm pretty sure Josh Gordon's lawyers aren't working on a contingency fee basis.

Works on contingency?

No, money down!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading that the league offered Gordon a deal and he turned it down... it looks inevitible that he'll go for a TRO. No idea if a judge will grant it, but he's worth grabbing if he's on your wire right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as an aside, Drew Rosenhaus isn't a lawyer.

if you graduate from law school and are an elite player agent, you're a lawyer in my eyes,

point is, he knows whether or not to pursue anything further, and would advise his client appropriately.

If he thinks Gordon has no case for a TRO, they wont go for it. Pretty simple in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as an aside, Drew Rosenhaus isn't a lawyer.

if you graduate from law school and are an elite player agent, you're a lawyer in my eyes,

point is, he knows whether or not to pursue anything further, and would advise his client appropriately.

If he thinks Gordon has no case for a TRO, they wont go for it. Pretty simple in my eyes.

Unfortunately, until you pass a bar exam, you're not a lawyer in anyone else's eyes. He's got more insight into the TRO process than a layperson, but he's certainly not an expert on litigation by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as an aside, Drew Rosenhaus isn't a lawyer.

if you graduate from law school and are an elite player agent, you're a lawyer in my eyes,

point is, he knows whether or not to pursue anything further, and would advise his client appropriately.

If he thinks Gordon has no case for a TRO, they wont go for it. Pretty simple in my eyes.

trust me

So he was wrong again. Who knew. :lol:

Trust him though. I liked it better after Gordons suspension was official, he stayed in hiding for a while. Now we cant discuss this rationally because he is back with his irrationality .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as an aside, Drew Rosenhaus isn't a lawyer.

if you graduate from law school and are an elite player agent, you're a lawyer in my eyes,

point is, he knows whether or not to pursue anything further, and would advise his client appropriately.

If he thinks Gordon has no case for a TRO, they wont go for it. Pretty simple in my eyes.

Unfortunately, until you pass a bar exam, you're not a lawyer in anyone else's eyes. He's got more insight into the TRO process than a layperson, but he's certainly not an expert on litigation by any stretch of the imagination.

not that it matters, or really care... but did he pass a bar exam?

have to think if he went to law school, he likely took the bar.

anyways... point is - the way the situation is now, Drew will advise accordingly. Needs gordon playing sooner than later. whether via TRO or just serving the suspension and getting it over with

not delaying for no legit reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he was wrong again. Who knew. :lol:

Trust him though. I liked it better after Gordons suspension was official, he stayed in hiding for a while. Now we cant discuss this rationally because he is back with his irrationality .

What an absolute bold faced lie.

Don't be that guy man... You got problems w my stances, fine... But dont flat out lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as an aside, Drew Rosenhaus isn't a lawyer.

if you graduate from law school and are an elite player agent, you're a lawyer in my eyes,

point is, he knows whether or not to pursue anything further, and would advise his client appropriately.

If he thinks Gordon has no case for a TRO, they wont go for it. Pretty simple in my eyes.

Unfortunately, until you pass a bar exam, you're not a lawyer in anyone else's eyes. He's got more insight into the TRO process than a layperson, but he's certainly not an expert on litigation by any stretch of the imagination.

not that it matters, or really care... but did he pass a bar exam?

have to think if he went to law school, he likely took the bar.

anyways... point is - the way the situation is now, Drew will advise accordingly. Needs gordon playing sooner than later. whether via TRO or just serving the suspension and getting it over with

not delaying for no legit reasoning.

No, he never passed a bar exam. Which means he never took one, because if you fail the bar you can't get licensed as an agent. Which is probably why he never tried.

Drew Rosenhaus has no expertise, and no standing in the professional community, to advise Josh Gordon as to whether or not he should file a lawsuit, and only after discussion with a real lawyer can that decision be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he never passed a bar exam. Which means he never took one, because if you fail the bar you can't get licensed as an agent. Which is probably why he never tried.

Drew Rosenhaus has no expertise, and no standing in the professional community, to advise Josh Gordon as to whether or not he should file a lawsuit, and only after discussion with a real lawyer can that decision be made.

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

but, correct. he did not take the bar

BUT, his brother is a lawyer... and they both work for the same agency that they own, together.

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he never passed a bar exam. Which means he never took one, because if you fail the bar you can't get licensed as an agent. Which is probably why he never tried.

Drew Rosenhaus has no expertise, and no standing in the professional community, to advise Josh Gordon as to whether or not he should file a lawsuit, and only after discussion with a real lawyer can that decision be made.

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

but, correct. he did not take the bar

I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

but, correct. he did not take the bar

I know.

again... his brother and adviser at Rosenhaus Sports, Jason Rosenhaus is a lawyer

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

but, correct. he did not take the bar

I know.

again... his brother and adviser at Rosenhaus Sports, Jason Rosenhaus is a lawyer

Yep.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew actually filed as a sports agent prior to graduating law school

but, correct. he did not take the bar

I know.

again... his brother and adviser at Rosenhaus Sports, Jason Rosenhaus is a lawyer

Yep.

So, yes.... Drew would advise his client w some solid sense of knowledge whether or not a TRO is a viable option or not.

As for whether or not it is, I have stated for the last 2 pages, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Gordon files a lawsuit, a judge would only be ruling on whether the arbitrator didn't do his job. The only grounds I could see him having is the time it took to make his decision.

I'm sure there's plenty of things they could potentially argue that we have no idea of.

Or there could be none.

They could argue whatever they want; however, in this situation, they'd need to prove that the arbitrator failed to do his job in order to win.

How is it not possible that they argue that something they presented as evidence was overlooked or not properly taken into account?

We dont know ANYTHING about the case. Just small leaks here and there.

There are plenty of things that could be argued in court, aside from just "arbitrator took too long"

If it's significant enough for a court to want to take a look, Im sure they would.

Again.... there could be zero defenses or reasons to go to court. I have no idea what they'll do.

But Im 100% certain there is more than just one single reason they could go to court.

Under normal circumstances, you can't appeal an arbitration decision for failing to adhere to some legal standard - you need corruption, fraud, or exceeding the authority of the arbitrator.

Serious question, what about a judge who's a browns fan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.