- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SIAP- Vilma sues Goodell for defamation
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:07 pm to BuckToothBilly
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:07 pm to BuckToothBilly
quote:
he never intended to pay. But, did he ever OFFER?
Read the PDF of the Civil Action linked on page 1. Especially the parts listed under "The truth" section. Vilma states he never "pledged" (offered), made or received any payments.
This post was edited on 5/17/12 at 3:08 pm
1
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:08 pm to BuckToothBilly
quote:
But to think that the Saints are totally innocent in all of this is very narrow-minded.
Reading comprehension -you should try it some time
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:09 pm to BuckToothBilly
Saying that you never paid, nor intended to pay anyone any money for intentionally hurting an opponent is saying that there was no bounty program.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:10 pm to BuckToothBilly
quote:
Let's say Vilma is truthful in his statements -- he never intended to pay. But, did he ever OFFER? If he used a "bounty" type payment as enticement to get team mates to play more violent in the hopes of getting recognized - ESPECIALLY if they got more recognition (monetary or otherwise) for cart-offs -- does the fact that he never intended to actually pay up on his offer make this any better?
The issue would be did Gooddell have any evidence to suspend Vilma for a year and make him the bad guy in this bounty thing.
Does hearsay about an offer to take out opponents mean Gooddell has the right to suspend and defame Vilma?
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:11 pm to Puck82
quote:
Read the PDF of the Civil Action linked on page 1. Especially the parts listed under "The truth" section. Vilma states he never "pledged" (offered), made or received any payments.
Yes -- I jumped the gun on saying things before I knew what the hell I was talking about.
I just read the pdf -- he clearly states that he never offered. Good for Vilma -- I hope he wins this.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:16 pm to SaintEB
Best thing I've read in a while. Thanks for the link. 
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:41 pm to dave11
With the year off, it's not like Vilma has a full schedule. Why not sue Goddell and have a few laughs.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:42 pm to Puck82
quote:This is what I was looking for. Saying you didn't pledge any money to players that hurt another player is one thing. I was interested in seeing if he would claim that he didn't put up any money for ANY purpose including big plays, turnovers, etc.
44. Vilma never placed $10,000, or any amount of money, on any table or anywhere else as part of a Bounty Program or any other program in violation of NFL rules
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:47 pm to Oyster
quote:
With the year off, it's not like Vilma has a full schedule. Why not sue Goddell and have a few laughs.
This is not a for shits and giggles lawsuit. He has made some serious allegations against Goodell and the way he handled this whole situation.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:53 pm to Puck82
Good for Vilma. Get that twerp Goodell under oath and force him to cough up the super-duper secret evidence he has.
This post was edited on 5/17/12 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:53 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Saying that you never paid, nor intended to pay anyone any money for intentionally hurting an opponent is saying that there was no bounty program.
...or its saying that he never participated in any bounty program
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:55 pm to Choctaw
Posted on 5/17/12 at 3:56 pm to Choctaw
quote:
...or its saying that he never participated in any bounty program
which effectively makes any program inoperative.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:01 pm to SaintEB
quote:
League's Response
quote:
“We have not yet reviewed the filing,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email. “However, our commitment to player safety and the integrity of the game is our main consideration. We recognize that not everyone will agree with decisions that need to be made.”
It totally skirts the issue and is meaningless dribble. We'll have to wait for Goodell's formal response. His first move will be to try to get this dismissed.
This post was edited on 5/17/12 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:03 pm to SaintEB
quote:
Goodell will have 30 days to formally respond to the complaint, once it is officially served. It will be far more detailed than the paragraph appearing above, and it likely will consist of an effort to dismiss the case, possibly under the argument that the labor agreement supersedes the litigation process, forcing Vilma to file a grievance under the CBA.
CBA has no bearing on public defamation.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:03 pm to dave11
quote:
It is on the Eastern District of Louisiana's court filing system.
EDLA's PACER revenues to hit $1million today.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:07 pm to Putty
Here's your potential jury pool right here.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:07 pm to Oyster
quote:
CBA has no bearing on public defamation.
And Jeff Duncan pointed out that its Vilma vs Goodell...there is no NFLPA involvement.
I'm not sure the CBA would even come into play either way.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:13 pm to kclsufan
I'm on vacay so I'm not looking at the PDF. Which Judge is it in front of?
The NFL will file No Cause of Action, No Right of action, Summary Judgment etc. there will be a lot of hoops to jump through before most discovery is finished.
The NFL will file No Cause of Action, No Right of action, Summary Judgment etc. there will be a lot of hoops to jump through before most discovery is finished.
Posted on 5/17/12 at 4:13 pm to SaintEB
quote:
And Jeff Duncan pointed out that its Vilma vs Goodell...there is no NFLPA involvement.
Not my field, but I fully expect: (i) NFL is the real party in interest; (ii) Godell was always acting in the course and scope of his employment by the NFL; and (iv) the suit names Godell only because he can't sue the NFL.
Also potential personal jurisdiction issues in Louisiana as releasing statements to media in New York who then disseminate them publicly nationwide, including Louisiana, does not amount to purposefully directing activities towards Louisiana.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News