I'm not starting a new thread, This isn't my neighborhood. But perhaps it's worthy.
NFL, Union Closer to Deal Stripping Roger Goodell of Discipline Power Wall St Journal - may require sub
more at the linkThe NFL Players Association has long fought with the NFL over how commissioner Roger Goodell oversees league discipline.
That may no longer be an issue.
The NFL and NFLPA are working toward a deal that would strip Goodell of his authority over off-the-field player discipline.
"We’ve been talking about changes to the personal conduct policy since October and have traded proposals," NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said Monday, via the Wall Street Journal, while traveling to the union's annual meeting in Hawaii. "We looked at the league’s proposal for neutral arbitration. There is a common ground for us to get something done."
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy acknowledged the negotiations, saying it "is an important area that deserves to be addressed thoughtfully and with full consideration for everyone’s interests — players, clubs and fans." The matter will likely be discussed at next week's NFL owners meetings in Boca Raton, Fla.
WSJ LINK (no payment needed)Also, Smith said, any agreement would have to settle the ongoing appeals. “It’s a player decision with what they want to do, but I can’t imagine there is any appetite to agree with any proposal that doesn’t wrap up all the litigation,” Smith said. “We can either continue to litigate or reach a collectively bargained conclusion.”
Also, [NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith] said, any agreement would have to settle the ongoing appeals. “It’s a player decision with what they want to do, but I can’t imagine there is any appetite to agree with any proposal that doesn’t wrap up all the litigation,” Smith said. “We can either continue to litigate or reach a collectively bargained conclusion.”
The last sentence is literally true, but the author seems completely ignorant of the fact that Goodell was overruled by the arbitrator {former fed. judge Barbara S. Jones} who concluded Goodell lied about what Rice told him. She nullified the indefinite suspension of Rice, though no NFL team has signed him to date.Goodell admitted to botching the 2014 discipline of former Ravens running back Ray Rice, who was initially suspended two games after he knocked his then-fiancee unconscious in an elevator. Rice was later indefinitely suspended and hasn't played since.
That Sporting News piece is ludicrously weak:
The last sentence is literally true, but the author seems completely ignorant of the fact that Goodell was overruled by the arbitrator {former fed. judge Barbara S. Jones} who concluded Goodell lied about what Rice told him. She nullified the indefinite suspension of Rice, though no NFL team has signed him to date.
Even Vincent didn't suspend Brady for on the field stuff, the original suspension was for being generally aware of something going on elsewhere. Goodell suspended Brady for engaging in a conspiracy which by nature is "off the field". So it would seem to be part and parcel of this.The article says it relates to his power for off-the-field discipline. Seems like it wouldn't have any effect on Brady.
I'm not so sure. I'd trade 4 games of starting Jimmy G for a 1st and a 4th this year, and I'd wager so would a majority of BBTL. We'd still likely make the playoffs, having spared TB12 some hits along the way, and teams keep a first rounder for at least 4 years in almost all cases.You may want to hold off on ordering the truckload of oats. But the agreement would end all litigation, that includes the Brady case. So the four game penalty would go away, and as I've said from day 1, keeping Brady on the field is all that matters.
I mean I hope you're right, but the draft is in 44 days, and I have a hard time believing that all of this can happen in this timeframe.Am I delusional and seeing unicorns in my barn?
- The committee returns the 1st round pick, if not the 4th
Why would the NFL do this without extracting some concession from the NFLPA? It's not like the league cares about fundamental fairness or public perception about Goodell.
Both sides will save millions of dollars in legal fees if every disciplinary case doesn't end up in court.Why would the NFL do this without extracting some concession from the NFLPA? It's not like the league cares about fundamental fairness or public perception about Goodell.
I think it may be the league trying to put a wedge between Brady & the NFLPA. I don't buy for a second that the league is really considering taking disciplinary authority away from Goodell. This is another tactic to break the union.It's the way the Pats get into the good graces of every NFL FA.
"We'll take the Brady suspension IF you give up this power moving forward."
If they give on that then the owners will have to give on a roster expansion.I wonder if the union will have to give in on the 18 game schedule for this.
Every assumption behind what you have written here is incorrect.It's the way the Pats get into the good graces of every NFL FA.
"We'll take the Brady suspension IF you give up this power moving forward."
Extending the current CBA for another year might do the trick.I wonder if the union will have to give in on the 18 game schedule for this.
This. Former Solicitor Generals don't work cheaply. I imagine that despite Goodell's assurances the owners are tired of the multimillion legal bills that result from his blunderbuss approach to disciplinary matters every year. A neutral arbitration panel would be pretty much impossible to successfully appeal to federal court.Both sides will save millions of dollars in legal fees if every disciplinary case doesn't end up in court.
Already rejected.Extending the current CBA for another year might do the trick.
I enjoyed this turn of phrase and the visual it suggests.This. Former Solicitor Generals don't work cheaply. I imagine that despite Goodell's assurances the owners are tired of the multimillion legal bills that result from his blunderbuss approach to disciplinary matters every year. A neutral arbitration panel would be pretty much impossible to successfully appeal to federal court.
Your assumption was that I was seriousEvery assumption behind what you have written here is incorrect.
That Pats have no part in deciding the NFL's appeal of the Brady case. They can't "accept" his suspension. Only Brady/the NFLPA can. And they are not going to.
If the Brady litigation is ended as part of any settlement, it means that there will be no suspension.
I'm inclined to agree with this because it is a rational and logical way for the league to move forward. However, in fairness to those speculating about the league wanting something very tangible in return, Goodell and the NFL exec teams have not exactly positioned themselves as rational and logical over the last several years.I'm a bit confused at the confusion here.
Changing the disciplinary process is itself very good for the NFL. It may seem like the NFL is giving something up by having it positioned as Godell being "stripped" of his authority, but Goodell flexing his muscles has been a disaster for the NFL in terms of terrible publicity, endless litigation and creating the overwhelming appearance of massive incompetence within the Commissioner's office. Ending that nightmare while resolving all litigation (including the current NFL appeal about Brady's case) is a significant win for the NFL. It also takes off the table the possibility that the NFL will have to do this based on a loss in court rather than collaboratively with the NFLPA.
The NFL is welcome to ask, but the NFLPA doesn't have to "give" anything else to get this. What they give the NFL by agreeing to this kind of restructuring is relief from the constant stream of horrible press they have been faced with for the last two or three years. That has been hurting their product and the NFL clearly knows it.
Oops. Sorry.Your assumption was that I was serious
I was playing the "BB is so smart that we're playing chess and Goodell is playing checkers. Or eating paste" card.
That's absolutely fair and I have no doubt that the NFL will ask for something. I'll just be shocked if the NFLPA gives it to them, because there is no need.I'm inclined to agree with this because it is a rational and logical way for the league to move forward. However, in fairness to those speculating about the league wanting something very tangible in return, Goodell and the NFL exec teams have not exactly positioned themselves as rational and logical over the last several years.
But Elmer Fudd used a shotgun, not a blunderbuss.....I enjoyed this turn of phrase and the visual it suggests.
I typed that note on my iPhone, and didn't notice that it autocorrected my custom word (apparently "learn spelling" doesn't work across devices). When I typed it was dunderbuss, for someone that just sprays the stupid indiscriminately across the landscape.But Elmer Fudd used a shotgun, not a blunderbuss.....I enjoyed this turn of phrase and the visual it suggests.This. Former Solicitor Generals don't work cheaply. I imagine that despite Goodell's assurances the owners are tired of the multimillion legal bills that result from his blunderbuss approach to disciplinary matters every year. A neutral arbitration panel would be pretty much impossible to successfully appeal to federal court.
Then the NFLPA better hurry up and make this deal before the Appeals Court decides to reinstate the suspension.Unless I missed it, the WSJ story does not include the speculation that Goodell will resign as commissioner. Just that he will relinquish his disciplinary powers.
It seems pretty clear that the Brady case will be rolled up into any settlement.
I get that this seems to be a SoSH consensus, but after reading the transcripts, I don't expect it. And if there's any truth to the reports, it would appear that the NFL doesn't either.Then the NFLPA better hurry up and make this deal before the Appeals Court decides to reinstate the suspension.
I couldn't get beyond the paywall in the WSJ, but from other reporting, I'm not sure this is true. From what I read, these negotiations started in October, after the Berman decision. I agree that that NFL probably thought at that time that they had no chance to prevail on Brady. Engaging in negotiations was a reasonable reaction to concerns about the courts stripping powers away. But all that started well before the hearing in March, and I do think it's possible that the NFL's chances improved at that time.And if there's any truth to the reports, it would appear that the NFL doesn't either.
This isn't going to be Goodell's call. It's going to be the guys exhausted from paying all the legal bills. If Goodell had any say in the matter this story would never have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and the NFLPA leadership isn't going to hang out to dry the guy that went to bat for them during the last work stoppage. There are two cases on appeal right now, and Smith was very precise about the NFL resolving the current cases.I understand the arguments in favor of a truly global deal. It just seems so counter to Goodell's grain. And I could see other teams and fans wondering why the hell the NFL spent so much damned money on this crusade only to settle it out at the end when they seemingly were on the verge of victory. No doubt, very little in litigation is guaranteed, and the questioning Kessler faced might not mean that it's curtains for the NFLPA/Brady. But if I had the level of Brady fixation that RG appears to have, I would have a hard time letting it all go away now.
I hope I am wrong and this indeed all goes away.
My caveat was perhaps a bit abstract, but that was what I had in mind when I said "if there's any truth to the reports."I couldn't get beyond the paywall in the WSJ, but from other reporting, I'm not sure this is true. From what I read, these negotiations started in October, after the Berman decision. I agree that that NFL probably thought at that time that they had no chance to prevail on Brady. Engaging in negotiations was a reasonable reaction to concerns about the courts stripping powers away. But all that started well before the hearing in March, and I do think it's possible that the NFL's chances improved at that time.
I really don't think the fact that DeMaurice Smith is the one talking to the WSJ, while still absent a deal, is a good indicator of NFLPA success.
Fixed that for ya buddy.I really don't think the fact that DeMaurice Smith is the one talking is a good indicator of NFLPA success.