| Saints Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom | Page 1 of 2  |
| Message |
| Players appeals have been robbed Posted by goatmilker Check out this bullsh#t!  on 5/3 at 10:08 amquote: quote: quote: nola.com LINK It seems the Union gave godhead more power than before. Similar to the interstate commerce law the Federal Gov uses to apply its power to anything and everything so to it seems is goodhead. If all this is tied to 'off field issues' then anything can fall under same. And goodhead is truely a dicktator! Reply • Back to Top |
| players can try to file for a court injunction on some type of "my boss is a dick head" argument. Reply • Back to Top |
Where do I file?  Reply • Back to Top |
| And you know, more food for thought. Players and the player's union need to own up to some responsibility to all of this as well. I'm kind of putting in my own words what gabe was saying yesterday. The players agreed to this CBA with Goodell, if these certain issues were big enough, they shouldn't have agreed to it, keep fighting it, and/or gave up other concessions to conceed these things back. A lot of players were very concerned about Goodell being judge,jury,and executioner and in the end, the player reps did not get what a lot of their players wanted. Goodell is being a dick by going by letter of the law on the cba but it is what it is. And to note, I think its quite relevant to point out how involved Drew was with all this cba and how he possibly has this political career afterwards and how the rules of this CBA is completely blowing up in the union's face. D smith should be fired, then Goodell. Reply • Back to Top |
| I believe that the NFLPA can file in court. Mainly if they think that discipline was filed under article 46 falsely as to circumvent arbitration agreed upon by NFL and the NFLPA. Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by shel311 on 5/3 at 10:17 am to goatmilker quote: quote: Meh. Reply • Back to Top |
 Reply • Back to Top |
| ^^^^^this*100^^^^^ Reply • Back to Top |
| I have a feeling this bounty stuff is going to get real interesting before it's over. Reply • Back to Top |
| I'd file a lawsuit in Federal Court saying that the way that the punishments were implimented violated due process in the fact that the process provided no notice or fair hearing and that the procedures are not spelled out and implimented in an arbitrary manner. Make Goddell defend him process to the Courts! IMHO Reply • Back to Top |
| so essentially the lack of any egregious behavior on the field (which would be a prime indicator of such a program off the field) gives Goodell a pass in having to justify his actions by providing evidence to a nuetral party. this leads me to a couple possible conclusions: 1. the evidence is weak at best and Goodell doesn't think it will hold up to any scrutiny 2. Goodell is a cunt 3. 1 & 2 Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I agree. The problem is, unless art 46 is clearly defined, it can mean whatever Goodell says it means. Are on/off the field activities ever defined in the CBA? edt: the way I take "off the field" is to mean non-football related activities like rape and shooting people in night clubs. "On the field" does not literally mean within the physical boundaries of a gridiron, but relates to football activities like practice, meetings, and game play. IMO edt2: then again, off the field may mean anything outside the confines of a game where there are refs with flags. This post was edited on 5/3 at 1:40 pm Reply • Back to Top |
| Actually, to the extent their is any ambiguity in a written instrument, those ambiguities are construed against the drafter. As I recall, the CBA was presented by the NFL to the NFLPA, who ratified it. Hence, under contract law principles, it would be construed against the NFL as the drafting party (or the party that furninshed the text). Reply • Back to Top |
| I did a quick search and didn't see anything resembling "bounties" as being an off the field activity. Reply • Back to Top |
| so it is up to the NFL to define in which context article 64 refers? Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Actually, no. It will be up to the courts to determine if the manner by which the NFL is interpreting Article 46 was that contemplated and agreed to by the parties. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: As long as they can at least get this into court (if need be) that's a win for the NFLPA. I really don't think Rog wants this going into court. Reply • Back to Top |
| ok, i got'ch now. NFL "Here, agree to this." NFLPA "OK" NFL "We are suspending players under article 64" NFLPA "Hold on there Cochise, that's not what article 64 is" off to court we go. Reply • Back to Top |
drunkin bump  Reply • Back to Top |
| Goodell sucks. Player suspensions are overreaching, no evidence, players deny stuff, grrrrrrrrrrr. Hulk smash Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
  Page 1 of 2  | ||
on 5/3 at 10:14 am to 
on 5/3 at 11:26 am to