- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: BOUNTY SUSPENSIONS OF PLAYERS OVERTURNED!!!!!.......for now
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:54 pm to tehchampion140
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:54 pm to tehchampion140
Amazing! 20 pages and we're still trying to figure out what the panel ment.
1
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:55 pm to moneyg
I'm re-posting this here since my thread's getting no play (wah) 
I think when the panel says:
they're not saying that they also made a determination that the Saints had a Pay to Injure program in place, just that the manner in which the alleged program was characterized by the league under which they suspended the players ran afoul of the CBA. Basically they're saying the Commish has no authority to discipline for bounty programs (the System Arbitrator does), which is something they think the league did here.
Also interesting is that they make the point that they see no reason that Goodell can't disciple for areas under his exclusive jurisdiction AND that the System Arbitrator can also discipline for violations under jurisdiction. In other words, its possible these guys could get double shafted, by Goodell AND the Sys Arb.
I'd really like a lawyers perspective on all this.
Here's a link to the ruling.
RULING
I think when the panel says:
quote:
"In our view the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury to opposing players,"
they're not saying that they also made a determination that the Saints had a Pay to Injure program in place, just that the manner in which the alleged program was characterized by the league under which they suspended the players ran afoul of the CBA. Basically they're saying the Commish has no authority to discipline for bounty programs (the System Arbitrator does), which is something they think the league did here.
Also interesting is that they make the point that they see no reason that Goodell can't disciple for areas under his exclusive jurisdiction AND that the System Arbitrator can also discipline for violations under jurisdiction. In other words, its possible these guys could get double shafted, by Goodell AND the Sys Arb.
I'd really like a lawyers perspective on all this.
Here's a link to the ruling.
RULING
This post was edited on 9/7/12 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:56 pm to kclsufan
Look I'm a lawyer, but I really don't feel like looking at this shite on a Friday at 5.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:57 pm to LSUAlum2001
The bulk of goodells supposed evidence was for a pay for performance pool, his claim of intent to injure was a conclusion he reached from the performance pool evidence. Now that he can't rule on a performance pool, it makes it almost impossible for him to produce evidence on a pay for injure scheme. He's not going to suspend them again because people aren't going to take his word for it like before. People will demand factual evidence and he knows if he suspends them again with no evidence it will be a PR nightmare and permanently stain his legacy. He would be widely considered corrupt for the rest of time. More so than he already is.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:58 pm to moneyg
quote:
I don't think they are saying that they have reviewed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the Saints actually did have a pay to injure program in place.
Thanks for that, alleged makes a big difference. If they had reached a conclusion they probably wouldn't be using the word alleged.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:58 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Look I'm a lawyer, but I really don't feel like looking at this shite on a Friday at 5.
Frick that. You get paid enough. Start typing. Lives are at stake here
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:59 pm to TigerinATL
If they had reached that conclusion, they probably wouldn't have overturned the suspensions.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 4:59 pm to moneyg
Either way I think RG will not be making the next suspensions on his own.
I see him sitting across the table from the owners, and them saying rig you done f'd this up enough. Here's what's gonna happen cause this shite needs to end.
Also if RG does suspend based on intent to injure, can the players not appeal/sue based on the presumption that if there was intent to injure in a game in say 2010, why was there no penalty or fine handed down then
I see him sitting across the table from the owners, and them saying rig you done f'd this up enough. Here's what's gonna happen cause this shite needs to end.
Also if RG does suspend based on intent to injure, can the players not appeal/sue based on the presumption that if there was intent to injure in a game in say 2010, why was there no penalty or fine handed down then
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:00 pm to Fun Bunch
Just follow Gabe Feldman on twitter, he has it all there for easy reading.
Feldman twitter
He basically says, at this point, the players are just waiting for Goodell's new decision. If they dont like it, they're probably going back to court. Judge Berrigan says she's also waiting for Goodell's new decision.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:01 pm to Chrome
who cares
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:03 pm to eyeran
quote:
Judge Berrigan says she's also waiting for Goodell's new decision.
Does that mean she has a strap-on with Rog's name on it?
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:11 pm to kclsufan
quote:They'll be right back in court because Goodell's still gonnna hammer the players.
Albert Breer ?@AlbertBreer
NFL internal memo: "Per the panel’s direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the ..."
"... appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today’s decision."
"Nothing in today’s decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, ..."
...or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental."
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:13 pm to eyeran
quote:
They'll be right back in court because Goodell's still gonnna hammer the players.
I'm afraid you may be right.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 5:32 pm to kclsufan
quote:
I think when the panel says:
quote:
"In our view the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury to opposing players,"
they're not saying that they also made a determination that the Saints had a Pay to Injure program in place, just that the manner in which the alleged program was characterized by the league under which they suspended the players ran afoul of the CBA. Basically they're saying the Commish has no authority to discipline for bounty programs (the System Arbitrator does), which is something they think the league did here.
this...unfortunate wording, but all they were talking about was within whose sphere of disciplinary jurisdiction the damned thing fell into.
this is clusterfrick...but perhaps the complete ruling that the panel says will follow will clear things up (not likely)
This post was edited on 9/7/12 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:02 pm to Putty
Hes Baaaaaaack!!!
Well not really, hes still hurt and by the time he can play they might be back on suspension but anyway.....
vilma4prez you should use this as your avatar.
Well not really, hes still hurt and by the time he can play they might be back on suspension but anyway.....
vilma4prez you should use this as your avatar.
This post was edited on 9/7/12 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:06 pm to Putty
This is what I think it means.. ( attorney btw.. although by no means in this area of law )
Article 46 of the CBA allows the Commish to punish for conduct detrimental to the league ( such as pay to injure )
Article 14 and 15 of the CBA allows the System Arbitrator ( not Goodell/Commish ) to punish players for violations of the salary cap ( such as pay for performance )
The NFL/Commish advanced the theory that the four players participated 'in a 'pay for performace/bounty' program' that was both a pay for performance and a pay to injure.
The Commish argued that he could alone could punish because the conduct was exclusively Article 46 conduct.
The System Arbitrator also agreed that the conduct was exclusively Article 46 conduct because although there was proof that there was payment into the pool, there was no proof that payment was made out of the pool. ( At least thus far ). Therefore, there was no 'proof' of a salary cap violation.
Because of this, the Commish then levied the suspensions all on his own. However, in doing so, he blurred the distinction and stated that the suspensions were because of a 'pay for performace/bounty' program' that was both a pay for performance and a pay to injure.
The Appeals Panel says that the distinction that the System Arbitrator drew was incorrect. Their view is that System Arbitrator's right to punish starts when the players contributed to the pool.
When the Commish handed the suspensions down, he did so, as it appears by his own words, at least in part, because of the 'contribution to the pool'.
The Appeals Panel stated that Commish only can punish for the 'intent to injure' part. The System Arbitrator authority extends to punishment for the 'contribution to the pool'.
What does it mean?
Well the Commish can still suspend, but it has to be based upon exclusively the 'intent to injure'. Then the System Arbitrator can then punish also for the 'contribution'.
Its being assumed that since the original Commish's punishment was for both, his subsequent punishment must necessarily be less. So it appears that it is all not good and not all bad.
However...because the Commish now has to base his punishment exclusively on the 'intent to injure', I think he now has to show proof of that. It is does appear that the Appeals Council believed that it does exist, as per 'In our view, the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury'.. However, it will be interesting to see how the Commish now has to parse down his evidence to show only the 'intent to injure' part separate and apart from the 'pay for performance' evidence.
Article 46 of the CBA allows the Commish to punish for conduct detrimental to the league ( such as pay to injure )
Article 14 and 15 of the CBA allows the System Arbitrator ( not Goodell/Commish ) to punish players for violations of the salary cap ( such as pay for performance )
The NFL/Commish advanced the theory that the four players participated 'in a 'pay for performace/bounty' program' that was both a pay for performance and a pay to injure.
The Commish argued that he could alone could punish because the conduct was exclusively Article 46 conduct.
The System Arbitrator also agreed that the conduct was exclusively Article 46 conduct because although there was proof that there was payment into the pool, there was no proof that payment was made out of the pool. ( At least thus far ). Therefore, there was no 'proof' of a salary cap violation.
Because of this, the Commish then levied the suspensions all on his own. However, in doing so, he blurred the distinction and stated that the suspensions were because of a 'pay for performace/bounty' program' that was both a pay for performance and a pay to injure.
The Appeals Panel says that the distinction that the System Arbitrator drew was incorrect. Their view is that System Arbitrator's right to punish starts when the players contributed to the pool.
When the Commish handed the suspensions down, he did so, as it appears by his own words, at least in part, because of the 'contribution to the pool'.
The Appeals Panel stated that Commish only can punish for the 'intent to injure' part. The System Arbitrator authority extends to punishment for the 'contribution to the pool'.
What does it mean?
Well the Commish can still suspend, but it has to be based upon exclusively the 'intent to injure'. Then the System Arbitrator can then punish also for the 'contribution'.
Its being assumed that since the original Commish's punishment was for both, his subsequent punishment must necessarily be less. So it appears that it is all not good and not all bad.
However...because the Commish now has to base his punishment exclusively on the 'intent to injure', I think he now has to show proof of that. It is does appear that the Appeals Council believed that it does exist, as per 'In our view, the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury'.. However, it will be interesting to see how the Commish now has to parse down his evidence to show only the 'intent to injure' part separate and apart from the 'pay for performance' evidence.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:06 pm to Meateye
quote:
vilma4prez you should use this as your avatar.
We can't. Herr Chicken has ruled we can't use political avitars anymore.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:07 pm to kclsufan
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:09 pm to TBCommish
quote:
It is does appear that the Appeals Council believed that it does exist, as per 'In our view, the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury'..
I think on this part they're still speaking about jurisdiction for the alleged bounty program assuming it's as the league claimed, not an independent finding that there was one.
Posted on 9/7/12 at 6:11 pm to TBCommish
Here's something that hasn't been mentioned:
When Vilma is on the roster on Sunday, his salary is fully guaranteed. He could be on the team on Sunday (and almost certainly NOT play), get suspended for the rest of the season, and the Saints will lose the $1.6m/2.2m cap relief that they would have had if he had been suspended for all 16 games. I suspect that the $8m in cap space we have would eventually be used to extend Graham or DLP, so that definitely makes a difference.
Also, if Smith ends up playing this week and getting suspended the next 4 games, this whole thing could be a big detriment to the Saints since I think he'd be more important against SD than the Skins.
When Vilma is on the roster on Sunday, his salary is fully guaranteed. He could be on the team on Sunday (and almost certainly NOT play), get suspended for the rest of the season, and the Saints will lose the $1.6m/2.2m cap relief that they would have had if he had been suspended for all 16 games. I suspect that the $8m in cap space we have would eventually be used to extend Graham or DLP, so that definitely makes a difference.
Also, if Smith ends up playing this week and getting suspended the next 4 games, this whole thing could be a big detriment to the Saints since I think he'd be more important against SD than the Skins.
Page 21 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News