SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
If you look at the Trib op-ed it points to the argument having gone from play vs. suspend to play vs. cut him.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Adrian Peterson Status Updates (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TheFanatic
- Start date
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
so whats the cap implication of Minny cuts him?
I never really thought that was and option
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Its not too bad, he's already been paid his guaranteed money (of course) and there was almost zero chance he would have played out this huge backloaded contract anyway. I've heard the cap hit is around 5 million. If they kept him he's scheduled to make over 15 million(!) next year against their cap. Thats almost double a Matt Forte. He aint that good.
Last edited by a moderator:
White Lightning
Footballguy
Just FYI. AP has a brutal schedule in 15 (@ Det.) and 16 (@Mia).
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/10/nfl-not-expected-to-reinstate-peterson-by-nflpa-imposed-deadline/
[SIZE=1.2em]NFL not expected to reinstate Peterson by NFLPA-imposed deadline[/SIZE]
Posted by Mike Florio on November 10, 2014, 4:33 PM EST
AP
On Friday, the NFL Players Association gave the NFL a deadline of 5:00 p.m. ET Monday to reinstate Vikings running back Adrian Peterson from the Commissioner-Exempt list. With 5:00 p.m. ET Monday looming and Peterson not yet reinstated, it’s highly unlikely that he will be.
The next step will be the filing of a non-injury grievance aimed at compelling Peterson’s reinstatement. If filed promptly, a hearing could be held and the case could be resolved before Minnesota’s next game on Sunday, at Chicago.
The argument will be that the NFL has reneged on the agreement that placed Peterson on the Commissioner-Exempt list until his legal case had been resolved. The NFLPA believes that, with the legal case now resolved, Peterson should exit the Commissioner-Exempt list and play pending discipline under the personal conduct policy.
A victory doesn’t mean Peterson won’t be suspended. Instead, it means he’ll be able to play until the NFL decides whether and to what extent he should be suspended in the wake of his misdemeanor no-contest plea to assault charges.
But a victory will mean that Peterson can play, indefinitely. It’s possible that the NFL has opted not to honor the terms of the agreement because the NFL hopes an arbitration ruling will provide cover for the league, in the event fans, the media, and/or sponsors react negatively to Peterson’s return. If he ends up playing because of a successful grievance, the league can claim that it tried to keep him out.
[SIZE=1.2em]NFL not expected to reinstate Peterson by NFLPA-imposed deadline[/SIZE]
Posted by Mike Florio on November 10, 2014, 4:33 PM EST
On Friday, the NFL Players Association gave the NFL a deadline of 5:00 p.m. ET Monday to reinstate Vikings running back Adrian Peterson from the Commissioner-Exempt list. With 5:00 p.m. ET Monday looming and Peterson not yet reinstated, it’s highly unlikely that he will be.
The next step will be the filing of a non-injury grievance aimed at compelling Peterson’s reinstatement. If filed promptly, a hearing could be held and the case could be resolved before Minnesota’s next game on Sunday, at Chicago.
The argument will be that the NFL has reneged on the agreement that placed Peterson on the Commissioner-Exempt list until his legal case had been resolved. The NFLPA believes that, with the legal case now resolved, Peterson should exit the Commissioner-Exempt list and play pending discipline under the personal conduct policy.
A victory doesn’t mean Peterson won’t be suspended. Instead, it means he’ll be able to play until the NFL decides whether and to what extent he should be suspended in the wake of his misdemeanor no-contest plea to assault charges.
But a victory will mean that Peterson can play, indefinitely. It’s possible that the NFL has opted not to honor the terms of the agreement because the NFL hopes an arbitration ruling will provide cover for the league, in the event fans, the media, and/or sponsors react negatively to Peterson’s return. If he ends up playing because of a successful grievance, the league can claim that it tried to keep him out.
Except the Bears have been giving up major points through the air not on the ground....
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This might be what's going on, Kabuki. The NFL & Vikes front office might be extremely sensitive because of what happened last time, so this way they can stand up and waive a piece of paper and say, "See, see, we have no choice!"
Remains to be seen if Goodell takes this over the cliff by suspending AP with the Rice decision looming. If he does the motive may simply be maintaining power over this issue. He has really gambled a lot on this thing if so because he might just lose that power in the end.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Grievance.
Filed.
Filed.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/10/nflpa-files-grievance-to-get-adrian-peterson-reinstated/
Union to Rog: Check.
towney
Footballguy
From Adam Schefter tweeter
The NFL Players Association has expedited a non-injury grievance to have Adrian Peterson removed from the Commissioner's Exempt List.
It sounds like a motion to make Peterson eligible to play. Commissioner Roger Goodell figures to be next to make a move. As the Vikings have stated they will welcome Peterson back whenever he regains eligibility, A.P. should have been plucked off fantasy waiver wires a week ago. We wouldn't bet on Peterson playing against the Bears in Week 11, but also wouldn't bet heavily against it.
The NFL Players Association has expedited a non-injury grievance to have Adrian Peterson removed from the Commissioner's Exempt List.
It sounds like a motion to make Peterson eligible to play. Commissioner Roger Goodell figures to be next to make a move. As the Vikings have stated they will welcome Peterson back whenever he regains eligibility, A.P. should have been plucked off fantasy waiver wires a week ago. We wouldn't bet on Peterson playing against the Bears in Week 11, but also wouldn't bet heavily against it.
And as you mention Rice:
It's worth noting we have no idea what happened over the 2 hours that RG testified. That's a little wild-card that can drive the politics of this w/o us knowing a thing.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
What's stopping Goodell from removing Peterson from the Exempt List and then immediately suspending him?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Nothing, but he could be challenged on what rule he's suspending him. The domestic violence rule? If not that, and arguably that rule does not seem to include child abuse, then is there an NFL provision on child abuse (don't think so) or misdmeanors generally?
I think if he does 6 games under the domestic violence rule then the union challenges that immediately.
And I don't think the Cartmanesque 'respect mah authoritay / I can do what I want' rule applies anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
About to get bad for the league up in here. League is going to take a stand.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well the personal conduct policy is under revision, right now, right? So Rog is going to rule under a process that might be obsoleted in a few months?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24716413/roger-goodell-nfl-overhauling-personal-conduct-policy
And is this the current PC policy?
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf
If that's the still the policy that's in effect then it seems to me that the league could not have punished AP before his 'no contest' plea came out. It seems to me he was doing them a big favor by agreeing to sit out in the interim so that they could get his story out the papers and clear the decks with the Ray Rice video thing going on. And I don't think he would have done this without getting assurances from the league on the front end that he would not be double-punished on the back end.
Last edited by a moderator:
ryno1980
Footballguy
"Unless the available facts clearly indicate egregious circumstances, significant bodily harm or risk to third parties, or an immediate and substantial risk to the integrity and reputation of the NFL..."
They can certainly consider his crime at this level if they choose to and just give him a 16-game suspension and a fine and time served. This wouldn't surprise me but it would be logical to levy a huge fine and consider his nine games away from the team as time served.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Right they could, but that clearly implies what they could have done before "disposition of the proceedings," not now, after. The policy contemplates allowing a player to play pending disposition or the league suspending before disposition, but not the player being kept from playing without suspension and the league dispensing punishment after disposition.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure how the players would have a leg to stand on...
Possibly they could challenge it on being a pattern? But if you apply it to Ray Rice there was nothing saying that was a pattern either right? I would guess if the NFL wants they could find a lot of different ways to suspend AP or keep him off the field.
- We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person.
Possibly they could challenge it on being a pattern? But if you apply it to Ray Rice there was nothing saying that was a pattern either right? I would guess if the NFL wants they could find a lot of different ways to suspend AP or keep him off the field.
ryno1980
Footballguy
Yes, they should have just formally suspended him right away. Should have just gave him an 8-game suspension. They had the facts already in the form of photos that anyone in the country who was interested could see. And the league has publicly said that their punishment will not depend upon what the judicial system does. If that was truly the case, why did they go to this exempt list ? Peterson should have refused it and said no, just suspend me if you're going to suspend me.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Vikings likely gave him no choice as wasn't there a huge blow up in Minnesota with Nike pulling his Jersey and political people talking to the vikings? Plus his court date was in December and there was no guarantee he would have then been able to even get back on the field possibly?
Lets see take paid leave now and possibly talk your way out of the suspension later?
or
Take a suspension now or worse get cut and have no one pick you back up cause at the time I am damaged good PR wise?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think you need to look at the NFL's DV policy created after the Ray Rice thing. IIRC it only mentions child/children once and that is when saying a woman is abused in the presence of a child but not the child being abused.
(This is not about Child Rea: sad conversation to have but the NFL has now put itself in a position of having its hairs split like this.)
ryno1980
Footballguy
Court date's irrelevant. 97 percent of criminal cases are settled before going to trial. If the Vikings cut him, I'm pretty sure he'd have still got paid and someone would have signed him after some time passed. He's far from washed up.
DropKick
Footballguy
Not funny, just factual. You could have the NFL's red tape - which includes reviewing the case, independent review, etc. Or legal system red tape - like Ray Rice. Neither is fleet of foot. Rice is fighting to get back in right now. Are Peterson and Rice that different? I don't think the NFL wants either one at the moment. And it wouldn't take much time for the season to slip by.
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
In other words they want Peterson to do their work for them, and they want him to make that as a condition even though the contract says he met the conditions.
League is digging deeper and deeper.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
pretty sad when the NFL can butcher a situation so badly that people start sympathizing with Peterson. I foresee Goodell resigning fairly soon.
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
I think he will have no choice.
The NFLPA will not negotiate with someone who they have verification of him not owning up to his agreements, even in writing.
Shocking that they have an out with the agreement if its face they want to save and still they are not using it, they much rather screw up the situation even worse.
snogger
Footballguy
Not to mention they are sealed records so Peterson CAN'T produce the information they want.
If AP has no possible access to the docs, then you're right. But where have we seen AP's camp claim that? Did I miss that? If I didnt miss anything, then the NFL's actions are quite reasonable given that ignoring the existence of known evidence is sort of what caused the only notable hurricane this country has seen all autumn long.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
There was this, but it reads like speculation on Florio's part. I'm not sure if there's some other source that indicates the NFL is asking for something Peterson can't provide.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Since Court Records are public the NFL can get all the documentation they need themselves. In this case they are clearly asking AP for the documentation because it is sealed due to protecting a minor.
As much as the NFL wants to hang AP this is the wrong way to go about it. It seems odd that they wish to risk the exposure of a minor in order to "protect the shield" mentality.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Potentially transferring information which is in the sealed record risks running afoul of the judge and the terms of his plea. Releasing records outside the purview of the record risks his defense, and again risks allowing images and details about his own child leaking into the public domain. The NFL is asking AP, his lawyer and the union for information and basing their process on that in an inherently unfair manner. So Rog asks the impossible and then claims they are being uncooperative.
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
Court Records are only public unless the judge seals them, they are sealed in this case.
This is the worst year in the leagues from office history. Goodell will not recover from this and I will be smiling as I hear his resignation speech. The league is worried about public opinion? They better worry about the public opinion of their commish he is not getting much of the good press recently.
His job is to handle this type of stuff, he cant handle it. Who could of seen this coming with his power happy punishments over years that one would back him into a corner.
Of course I follow your logic here. Makes sense.
To the extent they can do so without jeopardizing success in the forthcoming hearing, the time is now for AP's camp to publicly state that they are not in a position to release the info and the reasons why; whether those reasons be what you stated above or anything else.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
A bit off topic but I feel like the next CBA is going to be brutal. Players have got to be getting tired of the vague and liberal use of punishments with no end in sight mentality. The misgivings and low moral fiber of some athletes has been well documented for a long time. They are just like any other entity of society where some are great people and some are horrible and some are in between. The NFL, and more specifically Goodell, is trying to act like no other major sports league has where they dictate whether a player can play based on advertising campaigns and PR hits and mask it under the guise of justice. I still look at Jim Irsay in comparison to this and how quickly he was ushered back in and find this dog and pony show to be a complete scam.
The CBA is reason #1 that I do not understand the praise Goodell gets from the media.
A favorable CBA is one that has economics and rules that maximize mutual benefit. Taking advantage of a weak-kneed counter-party and getting a lopsided deal done in your own favor is *not* a good deal for your own side. This is long-term-partnership strategy 101.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
please the NFLPA is least powerful union in sports, what the Owners/ Goodell want, they get.
How about this, stop getting busted for stupid stuff, dont hit women, dont beat your kids with objects and dont get caught doing drugs???
wakelawyer
Footballguy
It is quite common for these types of records to be sealed. And it is also common for there to be a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty if such records are released. Depending on the wording of the relevant sealing statute, if any, RG and the NFL may be putting themselves in a tough position by demanding this information because the demand itself may result in action against RG and/or the NFL by the authorities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
The NFL needs to be perceived as doing everything they can to get any evidence that exists and I assume they will approach some legal lines to do so.
Nobody buys that they made such effort with Rice, so now they need to do at least a dog-and-pony that they're being relentless. So even If they fail in getting the info, then they can at least face the public and with a straight face say they tried to acquire a command of the facts before making a decision.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Is that so? Sealed records are sealed against the curiosity of a prying public, but not necessarily so against the access of a parent or guardian. Lots of potential variables here, custody determinations or legally recognized paternity, that the father is the alleged perpetrator, and Texas law. ,Do you have authority for your statement? I myself do not know. I'm sure the question must have come up and already been definitively answered somewhere.Not to mention they are sealed records so Peterson CAN'T produce the information they want.
JimmyJabroni
Footballguy
Adrian Peterson's NFL status will be determined by Saturday, Nov. 22 at the latest.
PFT's Mike Florio points out that under Article 43 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a hearing on an expedited grievance must occur within seven days of the filing (Nov. 17 in this case). The case must then be resolved within five days after the hearing. Of course, things could go faster than that but the NFL appears to be dragging its heels here in an effort to keep Peterson off the field. A source tells ESPN's Ed Werder that the case between the NFLPA and the NFL "could get ugly." Regardless, Peterson needs to remain on all fantasy rosters as the Nov. 22 date is one day before the Vikings host the Packers in Week 12. If he gets reinstated, there is plenty of season left.
PFT's Mike Florio points out that under Article 43 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a hearing on an expedited grievance must occur within seven days of the filing (Nov. 17 in this case). The case must then be resolved within five days after the hearing. Of course, things could go faster than that but the NFL appears to be dragging its heels here in an effort to keep Peterson off the field. A source tells ESPN's Ed Werder that the case between the NFLPA and the NFL "could get ugly." Regardless, Peterson needs to remain on all fantasy rosters as the Nov. 22 date is one day before the Vikings host the Packers in Week 12. If he gets reinstated, there is plenty of season left.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Being a Packer fan I do not want Peterson to be returning to the field that week with a chip on his shoulder and trying to make a point. He may be slowing down, he may be somewhat out of football shape, but a motivated Peterson is something to be respected (meaning only as a football player, not as a human being).
