NFLPA files collusion lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Hoosier16]

Link

I'm surprised there isn't already a 5 page thread. I guess we're all sick of lawsuits.

 

[CentralPA]

Link

I'm surprised there isn't already a 5 page thread. I guess we're all sick of lawsuits.

As long as the word "lockout" isn't mentioned nobody probably cares.

 

[GregR]

Not a lawyer but I think this case is probably more about sending a message than trying to win anything. As in, "we're willing to sue you over this stuff so consider that next time you consider colluding."

Don't see much hope of winning this case since in the 2011 CBA the players waived their right to sue, including through the Special Master, for collusion in any league year to 2011.

It does raise the point many of us here did when this Cowboys/Redskins cap thing broke, of why would the NFL flaunt their collusion in the NFLPA's faces? Punishing those teams doesn't seem worth the further erosion of good will with the players.

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (“TR”) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not a lawyer but I think this case is probably more about sending a message than trying to win anything. As in, "we're willing to sue you over this stuff so consider that next time you consider colluding."

Don't see much hope of winning this case since in the 2011 CBA the players waived their right to sue, including through the Special Master, for collusion in any league year to 2011.

It does raise the point many of us here did when this Cowboys/Redskins cap thing broke, of why would the NFL flaunt their collusion in the NFLPA's faces? Punishing those teams doesn't seem worth the further erosion of good will with the players.

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (“TR”) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement

I assume it was some sort of power play by Mara, rooted in some dynamics we can't fully understand- anger at the way "new money" does business perhaps. Even if you set aside the NFLPA I don't see why they'd flaunt their collusion in front of the fan base and the media for the short-term gain of a cap penalty most of which comes against a single team in a season in which they didn't expect to compete anyway.

 

[GregR]

Not a lawyer but I think this case is probably more about sending a message than trying to win anything. As in, "we're willing to sue you over this stuff so consider that next time you consider colluding."

Don't see much hope of winning this case since in the 2011 CBA the players waived their right to sue, including through the Special Master, for collusion in any league year to 2011.

It does raise the point many of us here did when this Cowboys/Redskins cap thing broke, of why would the NFL flaunt their collusion in the NFLPA's faces? Punishing those teams doesn't seem worth the further erosion of good will with the players.

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (“TR”) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement

I assume it was some sort of power play by Mara, rooted in some dynamics we can't fully understand- anger at the way "new money" does business perhaps. Even if you set aside the NFLPA I don't see why they'd flaunt their collusion in front of the fan base and the media for the short-term gain of a cap penalty most of which comes against a single team in a season in which they didn't expect to compete anyway.

I was thinking earlier I don't recall seeing an owner come forward as vocally and as often on a discipline issue as Mara has in this case. I suspect you may be right about him being a major player behind it. It's felt like this was coming from him far more than something coming from the commissioner's office.

 

[greenroom]

Not a lawyer but I think this case is probably more about sending a message than trying to win anything. As in, "we're willing to sue you over this stuff so consider that next time you consider colluding."

Don't see much hope of winning this case since in the 2011 CBA the players waived their right to sue, including through the Special Master, for collusion in any league year to 2011.

It does raise the point many of us here did when this Cowboys/Redskins cap thing broke, of why would the NFL flaunt their collusion in the NFLPA's faces? Punishing those teams doesn't seem worth the further erosion of good will with the players.

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues ("TR") or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement

I assume it was some sort of power play by Mara, rooted in some dynamics we can't fully understand- anger at the way "new money" does business perhaps. Even if you set aside the NFLPA I don't see why they'd flaunt their collusion in front of the fan base and the media for the short-term gain of a cap penalty most of which comes against a single team in a season in which they didn't expect to compete anyway.

But with the penalty that the NFL put to the Cowboys and Redskins is going forward, and will hurt them and the NFLPA if that salary cap is gone. So if the NFL opened that door I wonder if this is a way for the NFLPA to walk in?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Not a lawyer but I think this case is probably more about sending a message than trying to win anything. As in, "we're willing to sue you over this stuff so consider that next time you consider colluding."

Don't see much hope of winning this case since in the 2011 CBA the players waived their right to sue, including through the Special Master, for collusion in any league year to 2011.

It does raise the point many of us here did when this Cowboys/Redskins cap thing broke, of why would the NFL flaunt their collusion in the NFLPA's faces? Punishing those teams doesn't seem worth the further erosion of good will with the players.

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:

(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (“TR”) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011, or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement

I assume it was some sort of power play by Mara, rooted in some dynamics we can't fully understand- anger at the way "new money" does business perhaps. Even if you set aside the NFLPA I don't see why they'd flaunt their collusion in front of the fan base and the media for the short-term gain of a cap penalty most of which comes against a single team in a season in which they didn't expect to compete anyway.

Because they can.

 

[ICON211]

Maybe this also has something to do with the NFLPA trying to stop the league from "fining" teams cap space in the future. They certainly do not want the league to start taking away money meant to be spent on the players on a regular basis. I am no lawyer, but I do not know how the league can lower the collectively bargained salary cap for certain teams legally and flaunt it as others have brought up.

 

[fatness]

The timeline of the NFLPA's case starts with what it claims was a revelation of a "secret" $123 million salary cap in place during the uncapped 2010 NFL season. The Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins appealed a total penalty assessed by the NFL of $46 million in cap space stripped from them, due to excessive player spending in 2010. They lost that appeal on Tuesday, on the basis that the NFL can take measures to ensure competitive balance. During the course of that appeal, the union claims it learned of the alleged collusion during the 2010 season.

The NFLPA collusion claim was filed in the Minnesota District Court because they claim it stems from the Reggie White Settlement, which was resolved and overseen in that jurisdiction.

Kessler said on the call that the NFLPA has not determined the amount of lost salary dollars resulting from the league's "secret" cap in place during the 2010 season. They are currently asking for up to $3 billion in damages.

If the case survives challenges on the basis of the stipulation of dismissal, the NFLPA sounded confident in their ability to prove collusion.

"The evidence here will be more compelling and direct than it was in the MLB case," Kessler said, referring to a series of collusion cases lost by Major League Baseball in the 1980s.

Much of that evidence, the union says, comes from statements made in the media by owners, executives and others affiliated with the NFL. The initial press release from the NFLPA directly cited comments made by New York Giants owner John Mara. Additional evidence will be revealed in the discovery phase, said Kessler, including how the NFL arrived at their alleged $123 million cap during the uncapped 2010 season.

link

 

[Todd Andrews]

Mara and Goodell are idiots.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think Florio makes a ton of sense here (i.e. the case will be tossed). In fact it seems so open and shut that I expect the NFLPA is filing it just to try to give the NFL a black eye re: collusion. If the case is tossed it'll be interesting to see if they release the documents they say prove the claim.

Posted by Mike Florio on May 24, 2012, 11:59 PM EDTThe inherently complex collusion case filed by the NFLPA against the NFL could boil down to a pair of short and simple legal documents.The antitrust lawsuits (filed by Reggie White and others in the early 1990s and by Tom Brady and others in 2011) and all other legal issues formally were resolved by the August 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which operates like a standard settlement agreement. But signing a settlement agreement doesn’t automatically end a legal case. Steps are still required to wipe the lawsuit off the court’s docket.And so the NFL and NFLPA accomplished that by signing a “Stipulation of Dismissal,” a common legal document that formalizes a commitment to end litigation. On August 4, 2011, one lawyer for each side signed his name at the bottom of this agreement: “The parties stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (‘SSA’) including but not limited to the claims asserting breach of the SSA related to (i) television contracts and broadcast revenues; and (ii) asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year, excepting only the pending claim filed March 11, 2011 relating to an alleged rookie shortfall on the part of the Philadelphia Eagles.”The “SSA” was the settlement document from the White antitrust lawsuit, under which the new collusion claim has been filed. The presence of terms in the stipulation like “known and unknown” and “pending or not” and “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year” will serve as strong ammunition for the NFL’s inevitable claim that the NFLPA waived in exchange for the new labor deal the new collusion claim.NFLPA lead outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler fully understands that the “Stipulation of Dismissal” could derail the new collusion claim. During Wednesday’s conference call regarding the new filing, Kessler argued that the “Stipulation of Dismissal” was trumped by Judge David Doty’s order that actually dismissed the case.“There was a stipulation as part of the Brady agreement that the parties said they would propose to the court,” Kessler said. “The court did not enter that proposed stipulation. . . . Instead the court did its own ruling, which it’s allowed to do, which says that only claims pending are dismissed. That’s it. That’s all the court was willing to do, and the court, as the guardian of the class, this is for the class action, has absolute authority on that.”Asked whether the “Stipulation of Dismissal” would have prevented the present collusion case if Judge Doty had acted on the document, Kessler said, “Possibly.”The NFL will dispute Kessler’s characterization of Judge Doty’s order. Actually, there was no separate order. Instead, the official docket sheet says only this: “TEXT ENTRY ONLY. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims pending regarding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are dismissed. All other outstanding motion are dismissed.”Kessler believes this operates as a rejection of the “Stipulation of Dismissal,” in which the parties agree that “all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not” will be dismissed, including claims for “asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 League Year.” The NFL believes that the text entry on the docket sheet merely represents the mechanical closing of the case by the court, especially since the docket sheet also shows the filing of the “Stipulation of Dismissal” with no subsequent entry indicating it had been stricken or otherwise ignored.Thus, while there may be plenty of evidence of collusion in 2010 (and we fully suspect there is), the NFLPA will have a very hard time circumventing the content of the “Stipulation of Dismissal.” Even though the NFL believes that Judge Doty has a bias in favor of the NFLPA, all judges have a strong interest in seeing settled cases stay settled. It’s hard to envision any judge agreeing with the argument that the NFLPA isn’t bound by the plain language of the “Stipulation of Dismissal,” which as written encompasses the collusion claim filed on Wednesday, along with any other claims that the NFLPA could have asserted “known and unknown, whether pending or not” prior to August 4, 2011.We continue to keep an open mind, and we’ll read with great interest the briefs and memos submitted by the parties on the question of whether the collusion case should be dismissed on the basis that the claim was forfeited in exchange for the new labor deal. For now, though, it appears that the collusion claim was one of the things that the NFLPA sacrificed in order to strike the current labor deal.