Source: Saints 'refused' to provide a 'declaration of support' for suspended players

[spacedoodoopistol]

I wish the media would not give so much attention to the "Goodell is the judge, jury, and executioner" complaints because the world is so gullible that people start to think this is some due process or the like injustice.

The "judge jury executioner" is an easy cliche, but a more apt comparison might be that he's both the judge and the appelate judge.....which is pointless. Might as well not have an appeals process, but the NFL does this all for appearances so they have to appear to have due process.

Its easy to see here that the league has circled wagons and considers this situation way more important than fairness (regardless of the merits of the appeals).......this all has to do with league's response to head injury problems, that they want to be seen as taking a firm stand on player safety. The Saints and the league office are in this together, they will live or die together on the head injury lawsuits, and are taking a firm stand.

 

[NinerSickness]

i consider Coaches part of management and hence the Saints.

This must be the confusion. I don't think the NFLPA sent their request to the coaches; that probably went to the front office. I don't think coaches even see stuff like that.

i'm not getting the Vilma part and sorry for not searching now. are you saying its in Vilma's contract to stay out of bounty systems? or are you saying he started this bounty system?

The former. The NFL code of conduct forbids any kind of payment system to players other than what's specified in their contracts. Anyone who gives or receives these supplimental payments are violating their contracts (including coaches).

 

[deep9er]

This must be the confusion. I don't think the NFLPA sent their request to the coaches; that probably went to the front office. I don't think coaches even see stuff like that.



The former. The NFL code of conduct forbids any kind of payment system to players other than what's specified in their contracts. Anyone who gives or receives these supplimental payments are violating their contracts (including coaches).

its not a question about guilty or not guilty, the players are guilty of violating the code of conduct. the NFLPA was asking for this letter from the Saints to help REDUCE player penalties. it wasn't to exonerate players.

i'm saying why wouldn't the Saints do it if G. Williams started the system? why? because G. Williams was Saints Management. unless someone can explain what i'm missing here, IMO the Saints aren't backing up their own? they don't have their player's back (so to speak)?

if the players started the system, then i can see the Saints not doing it.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Timing of evidence disclosure could scuttle bounty suspensions | ProFootballTalk

 

[ChrisPozz]

Three attempts to define the term “killing the head” | ProFootballTalk

 

[Kinzu]

As Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement goes, there aren’t many technicalities in the appeal process. Here’s one of them, from Article 46, Section (f)(ii): “In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.”

Key language: Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

Key word: Shall.

As every law student learns when studying “civil procedure” (i.e., the rules for litigating cases), the word “shall” always should (or, I suppose, “shall”) be regarded as a red flag. It conveys a mandatory requirement. No discretion. No exceptions. No wiggle room.

Here, failure to deliver the exhibits on time “shall” prevent them from being used at the hearing.

Commissioner Roger Goodell previously scheduled the hearing in the bounty case for 10:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 18. The NFL delivered its packet of 16 exhibits to the NFLPA at roughly 1:30 p.m. ET on Friday, June 15.

I'm no legal expert but the rule states no later than 3 calendar days before the hearing. If the players got them on Friday that was within the 3 calendar days. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are all calendar days before the hearing on Monday. The article states a full 72 hours which was not giving, but the rule does not say 72 hours. It clearly states 3 calendar days not 72 hours. Why confuse the meaning behind a rule when you could have made it perfectly clear by using hours instead of days?

Also the article mentioned the NFL held up the start of the hearing until after the 72 hours had passed just to make sure they covered themselves on it. The question will now become can they do that, and if they can what is the point of the process.

 

[MHSL82]

I'm no legal expert but the rule states no later than 3 calendar days before the hearing. If the players got them on Friday that was within the 3 calendar days. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are all calendar days before the hearing on Monday. The article states a full 72 hours which was not giving, but the rule does not say 72 hours. It clearly states 3 calendar days not 72 hours. Why confuse the meaning behind a rule when you could have made it perfectly clear by using hours instead of days?

Also the article mentioned the NFL held up the start of the hearing until after the 72 hours had passed just to make sure they covered themselves on it. The question will now become can they do that, and if they can what is the point of the process.

I know that what I am about to say isn't "solid" for other contexts and therefore cannot be applied universally, but if the argument is that the players would have had a more meaningful appeal (even winning) if it were only for that 3 1/2 hours loss of time, IMO they are wrong. And no, I don't mean that 3.5 is nothing, that we could go, say another 3.5 and another so it wouldn't matter. I'm talking about them complaining about anything and everything when it appears their case isn't that strong besides the crying of unfairness.

To switch hats, I don't know what Vilma could do to prove he's innocent. Prove you didn't beat your wife (I know, mixed misused analogy)? All he can do is invalidate the evidence. He's not really doing that (though I'm sure they tried on his behalf); instead, he's just telling people he's innocent and the process is unfair. I don't expect him to say anything different, but that isn't going to win.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

i'm saying why wouldn't the Saints do it if G. Williams started the system? why? because G. Williams was Saints Management. unless someone can explain what i'm missing here, IMO the Saints aren't backing up their own? they don't have their player's back (so to speak)?

The league office and Saints are on the same side here.....basically, the commish works for the owners. And they collectively sit on the opposite side of the table from the players in most negotiations or disputes. In terms of player safety and the lawsuits, the teams and league office are certainly partners and probably are working closely in their response to this situation.

Nor would I exactly say Williams is Saints management....he's just another employee, not a player but not part of the owners' group which is represented by the commish. Kind of a third party to all of this.

 

[Kinzu]

The league office and Saints are on the same side here.....basically, the commish works for the owners. And they collectively sit on the opposite side of the table from the players in most negotiations or disputes. In terms of player safety and the lawsuits, the teams and league office are certainly partners and probably are working closely in their response to this situation.

Nor would I exactly say Williams is Saints management....he's just another employee, not a player but not part of the owners' group which is represented by the commish. Kind of a third party to all of this.

I look at it like this. If you structure the NFL like a normal business
Players = Salesmen
Coaches = Department Managers and Supervisors
GM = Assistant Store Manager
Owner = Store Manager
Commissioner = CEO of the Company

Their is a lot more involved of course but that would be the basic breakdown on the pecking order. The coaches are more directly responsible for the players than anyone else. It's their job to coach and manage them.

 

[MHSL82]

I look at it like this. If you structure the NFL like a normal business
Players = Salesmen
Coaches = Department Managers and Supervisors
GM = Assistant Store Manager
Owner = Store Manager
Commissioner = CEO of the Company

Their is a lot more involved of course but that would be the basic breakdown on the pecking order. The coaches are more directly responsible for the players than anyone else. It's their job to coach and manage them.

I think deep wants it to be more like state government versus federal government? States have rights, federal government has some priority over states but not unlimited, and the state (New Orleans) is not sticking up for its citizens (players). I suppose managers and assistant store managers could stick up for them, too. I think New Orleans is trying to get on the commissioner's good side or thinks that all for show would accomplish less in good faith to players/future free agents than deep thinks it would.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I look at it like this. If you structure the NFL like a normal business
Players = Salesmen
Coaches = Department Managers and Supervisors
GM = Assistant Store Manager
Owner = Store Manager
Commissioner = CEO of the Company

The tough thing about this comparison is that there is a union involved, as well as a management organization. Its not quite the linear structure you have presented. I think its helpful to think of the commissioner as "head owner", or the president of the "owners' union".

I can only compare it to a situation I had in my previous work.....where I worked as a bookkeeper and sort of "right-hand man" at a union company. I wasn't part of management nor was I part of the workers' union.....more just off to the side, if you wanted to show it in an org chart. In terms of day-to-day work, I could tell the union guys what to do, but in a labor situation or grievance I had absolutely no authority in the matter.

 

[deep9er]

I think deep wants it to be more like state government versus federal government? States have rights, federal government has some priority over states but not unlimited, and the state (New Orleans) is not sticking up for its citizens (players). I suppose managers and assistant store managers could stick up for them, too. I think New Orleans is trying to get on the commissioner's good side or thinks that all for show would accomplish less in good faith to players/future free agents than deep thinks it would.

yes, because my understanding is G. Williams (Assistant Store Manager) started it. if the Assistant Store Manager tells the employee don't mop wet spots on the floor, what happens when a customer slips and falls?

the store's Employee Handbook spells out employees should mop the floor, so the employee is guilty. but shouldn't the Store Manager stick up for the employee to help REDUCE his penalty? shouldn't the Manager send a letter addressed to the CEO backing up his employee?

if not, how does the store effectively gain new employees?

 

[ChrisPozz]

Pash urges consideration of full scope of bounty evidence | ProFootballTalk

 

[MHSL82]

"Although you claimed to have been `wrongfully accused with insufficient evidence,' your lawyers elected not to ask a single question of the principal investigators, both of whom were present at the hearing," Goodell wrote in his appeal ruling. "You elected not to testify or to make any substantive statement, written or oral, in support of your appeal; you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal; and you elected not to introduce a single exhibit addressing the merits of your appeal. Instead, your lawyers raised a series of jurisdictional and procedural objections that generally ignore" the collective bargaining agreement.

NFL rejects appeals in New Orleans Saints bounty case - ESPN

This is why I give absolutely no credence to Vilma and the likes claims that the system was unfair, without due process, yada, yada, yada.

BEFORE the appeal was heard, they said that Goodell could not be impartial. Before the appeal's hearing was over, they left the room, without presenting their case outside of just saying, "you can't be fair!" My goodness. Defend your case, bring your witnesses, question the investigators, and then AFTER losing the appeal, complain about unfairness, sue the NFL or whatever. They gave Goodell absolutely no incentive to lower the suspensions. Absolutely none. I see the point that the boss gets to rule and hear the appeal is a problem, but once you knew that wasn't going away, why do you stamp your feet and cry foul before the hearing's over? There's plenty of time for that afterwards and you could claim to everyone that you cooperated and got nothing. Help yourselves as much as you can and then complain about the rest or take it.

It's like getting mad at the teacher for having too hard of a test, then protesting by not studying, and then saying, "See! The test is unfair! I got such a low score that you unfairly made the test too hard!" I think Goodell could be bad and wrong, but there's nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.

Haven't seen this here yet, so I'm posting it below.

Jonathan Vilma of New Orleans Saints files notice of injunction over suspension - ESPN

 

[FourBeeDen]

NFL rejects appeals in New Orleans Saints bounty case - ESPN

This is why I give absolutely no credence to Vilma and the likes claims that the system was unfair, without due process, yada, yada, yada.

BEFORE the appeal was heard, they said that Goodell could not be impartial. Before the appeal's hearing was over, they left the room, without presenting their case outside of just saying, "you can't be fair!" My goodness. Defend your case, bring your witnesses, question the investigators, and then AFTER losing the appeal, complain about unfairness, sue the NFL or whatever. They gave Goodell absolutely no incentive to lower the suspensions. Absolutely none. I see the point that the boss gets to rule and hear the appeal is a problem, but once you knew that wasn't going away, why do you stamp your feet and cry foul before the hearing's over? There's plenty of time for that afterwards and you could claim to everyone that you cooperated and got nothing. Help yourselves as much as you can and then complain about the rest or take it.

It's like getting mad at the teacher for having too hard of a test, then protesting by not studying, and then saying, "See! The test is unfair! I got such a low score that you unfairly made the test too hard!" I think Goodell could be bad and wrong, but there's nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.

Haven't seen this here yet, so I'm posting it below.

Jonathan Vilma of New Orleans Saints files notice of injunction over suspension - ESPN

I read the above article on the rejection of the appeal earlier and what cracked me up the most was a Packer fans repeatedly trying to say Hargrove's suspension was unfair because he did not do anything. He was just following his coaches' orders to "play dumb" (this was the word used by the poster)... I guess his idea of doing nothing wrong does not apply to lying if Hargrove did was just following orders... I guess the poster is not familiar to the Nurember Trials .. I was just following orders is an excuse not a defense

 

[Bemular]

This just seems to be a stupid waste of time & money.

NFLPA sues, calls Goodell 'biased' in bounty case