This doesn't change the fact that Gruden is a shitbag, but good luck to him with this. I hope he can at least make the NFL uncomfortable.
Goodbye Gruden and ongoing Snyder investigation discussion
- Thread starter PC Drunken Friar
- Start date
My kingdom for a Gruden who doesn’t care about the money and just wants the NFL’s garbage to see the light of day.
Agreed with the above.
Also, since it lines up that Dan Snyder quite possibly leaked the Gruden stuff (to avoid media scrutiny about the NFL investigation into his organization that is still not released), tying Dan and Roger together into a crap sandwich could be beneficial.
Also, since it lines up that Dan Snyder quite possibly leaked the Gruden stuff (to avoid media scrutiny about the NFL investigation into his organization that is still not released), tying Dan and Roger together into a crap sandwich could be beneficial.
Seconded. Taking down Snyder would be result enough for me, but I have zero expectation of that happening.
My wife is the imager on one of the NFL concussions studies. She has briefed Goodell and his team on their research and work a couple times at least. She describes him as "much, much smarter" than people give him credit for and way more serious than the cartoon character we have dealt with. I would love to see him nuked from orbit (not literally), but I suspect he will be one tough bugger to dig out of that gig until he is good and ready.
This is just Gruden grabbing free cash, right? The NFL will pay tens of millions of dollars in a settlement to avoid any real discovery that would expose them as, at the least, liars for saying Gruden’s emails were the only ones that were offensive.
does he actually need the money?
Looks like (at least in 2015) he was one of the highest paid people at ESPN with a yearly salary of 6.5 million.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/highest-paid-espn-jon-gruden-report-monday-night-football-jon-gruden-salary
He may be the type of person who will burn it all to the ground and show the hypocrisy of the NFL
I have a former colleague who worked in the NFL front office and basically said the same thing. He’s reasonably intelligent but he’s also a massive a-hole per my former colleague. He apparently routinely openly groused about how much the NFL executive team was making, comments made even more ridiculous given his absurd compensation.
The St. Louis lawsuit is already shaping up to be a disaster, they don’t need another one.
Who doesn't "need" an extra MILLION dollars? Maybe it's not worth Elon's time, but I think most people would love to add 5-10% or so to their net worth.
Also, there can be multiple motives at play. A settlement cash offer and somehow finding a way to embarrass Goodell may both be acceptable outcomes here.
Last edited:
I have no sympathy for Gruden, he’s a different species, but he’s still a viper, but I’m glad it’s back in the news again. People, even people like Florio, who were up in arms about it, got distracted by the Rogers cluster. Now it’s back in the news reminding everyone who the real shitheads are.
Pretty cool. Out of curiosity, what does it mean to be "the imager". i.e. what does your wife do?
And yeah, would love to see Roger go down or get some major blowback from this, but unfortunately I doubt it. Hope I am wrong.
It's possible his brother may have told him some things while he was HC there.
Last edited:
She is a cognitive nueroscientist who as part of her work is also a neuroimager and the person who coordinates all the scanning of the NFL subjects in the concussion study. I guess I should say maybe was as it might have wound up already. But for a number of years they scanned hundreds of current and retired players as part of the study.
As much as we’d like Gruden to be the one to dig in and take down Goodell, I think you will be proven right here.
My only (very minor) disagreement is about his objectives. The free cash is nice, but I think what he really wants is the ability to claim vindication. So the only thing he’ll negotiate on is that the terms of the settlement must allow him a way to claim that the leak unfairly targeted him. If he gets that, he’s going to be good with whatever number the NFL throws his way. (He’ll conveniently ignore the fact that the person who “ruined his career” is the same guy he looks at every day in the mirror.)
Id love for us to both be wrong, but I don’t think Gruden is going to be a hero here.
Agree with this. While I know that enough is never enough for absurdly rich people, Gruden already has generational wealth and another couple million in a quiet confidential settlement cannot be what he wants out of this. That may be where things end up as the NFL digs in its heels and the legal bills start mounting. But at least at the outset for Gruden I believe this is all about being able to claim vindication.
The thing is the NFL has much deeper pockets and we know Goodell is not shy about spending the league’s money to prove a point, so IMO that’s where things could get interesting.
Being able to claim vindication is exactly where my head went. Too bad. It would be delightful if he burned the place down. I just don’t think that’s his motivation.
Money talks. He very well may be going into this to light the office on fire, but they have stupid money. They can throw $100M at him without batting an eye. I don't know what that number actually is for Gruden, but at some point it'll be too much to keep pushing.
Even if Gruden is right and can prove that he was targeted, is that illegal? He wasn't framed.
Snyder doesn't make sense to me, or at least not for that reason. He and the NFL had already taken the PR hit on the WFT investigation. This Gruden stuff is refocusing scrutiny, not distracting.
Yeah, but then there are protective orders, and as noted, if he does settle, there’ll be a non-disclosure agreement to choke a hippo.Still just comes down to whether Gruden wants to air the NFL’s laundry at trial or not.
He’s just threatening to get to discovery at which point the NFL would be susceptible to him leaking documents.
People who make that kind of money don't often take the switch to making no money super well. He's not coming back to football anytime soon (or, hopefully, ever) so his options to turn the tap back on are limited. A settlement or a yell-all book are probably top of the list.
I have nothing knowledgeable to add to this discussion, aside from admiration for this turn of phrase.
Discovery goes both ways. If the NFL was smart, they saved some bad emails from Gruden, who I assume also had to have a long think about what else he might’ve said or put in writing over his entire life.
Anyone know anything about the firm he picked? I imagine quite a few national firms didn’t want to be adverse to that sweet NFL money for a one off case.
Anyone know anything about the firm he picked? I imagine quite a few national firms didn’t want to be adverse to that sweet NFL money for a one off case.
As others have said, he very well may not care about winning the case. The NFL having to expose the vast amount of communications - of which there is surely more dirty laundry than Jon Gruden - has clearly scared the shit out of the league. They've made it clear they do not want this.
While I agree, I don't think it's a stretch to say the NFL has much more to lose. And, at this point, Grudens career is already ruined. While I'm sure he can drop further, the person without much to lose is much more dangerous.
I dunno man, imagine a multibillion dollar company with the best lawyers and no shame decided to look under every nook and cranny of your life to expose any other racist or homophobic shit you may have said or done and the effect that exposure would have not only on your professional but also social life and reputation.
Absolutely true. But if the lawsuit is that he feels he was fired unjustly - and that the NFL forced Davis' hand - I'd assume theyre pretty limited with what they can use. Finding a picture of him in blackface highlights he's racist, but if they didn't have it and cite it when using it to push him out, do you think they'd let that be allowed in court? I'd think the remaining damage he can take would be pretty limited - at least to the scope of what they've already seen.
But you would obviously have more experience in the legal realm than I.
Everyone has a price. The NFL will vigorously defend this case, the parties will eventually settle at a big number (for Gruden, not for the NFL), there will be an air-tight non-disclosure agreement to go along with a settlement agreement where the NFL admits no guilt. I would be a zillion dollars on this outcome.
Doesn’t that cut both ways though? It’s not just the NFL that gets to expose Gruden, but Gruden gets to try to expose the nfl: Owners, and Goodell.
is that incorrect?
I know that the BFF obviously hasmore resources to go on the offensive than Gruden has, but by the same token the nfl as a whole, and its individuals, have more to lose than he does.
(as KFP states: you obviously know more about this than I do, so please take this as inquiry, not as me trying to say you’re wrong)
question: we all know that Gruden’s behavior is fireable in the abstract, for another of us out in the ‘real world’ we’d obviously be canned. But, if Gruden can prove that his type of behavior is endemic and generally accepted (or at least ignored) by others in the NFL, is that a reasonable accusation on his part?
‘you fired me because I’m a racist/sexist asshole…but here’s evidence that these other people (coaches, owners, nfl office) are also racist/sexist assholes and no one ever cared and no one cares now, so that means I was unfairly targeted’
Is that not valid, legally?
Edit: which is not to say that this won’t be settled out with NDA’s and a pile of cash. But I’m curious…if Gruden decided he really wanted to hammer it on principle, regardless of cost to his wallet or his professional/social life, is that a real thing?
In short, is it at all likely that the NFL will be eaten by a grue?
He wasn’t fired though, he resigned. I suppose he can argue he had no choice or something, but if he wanted to make some kind of argument about being unfairly singled out he probably should have forced them to fire him. Beyond that if other owners accept similar shitty behavior from their coaches I don’t think that means Mark Davis should be forced to accept it from Gruden.
Im sure the gambit here for Gruden is the potential exposure of whatever the hell else came out of the WFT investigation, but standing on its own his case sucks. He actually did write the emails, everyone in the world knows you should never assume emails will remain private, and then he resigned when they came out.
Im sure the gambit here for Gruden is the potential exposure of whatever the hell else came out of the WFT investigation, but standing on its own his case sucks. He actually did write the emails, everyone in the world knows you should never assume emails will remain private, and then he resigned when they came out.
For all those who say the NFL has a lot to lose…what, exactly do they stand to lose here? Is the leagues squeaky clean reputation going to take a hit? And how exactly would that matter?
I guess Gruden may just want to take others down with him, maybe that feels good but how is that helpful to him or his career going forward?
I guess Gruden may just want to take others down with him, maybe that feels good but how is that helpful to him or his career going forward?
In terms of Gruden's future career prospects, I would bet he has a QB clinic / camp set up in Vegas or Tampa within the next two years. And he'll get plenty of customers. He's a shit NFL GM and probably not a great leader of men, but he has a real touch for working with quarterbacks.
Wouldn't surprise me. Assuming he does some sort of semi-sincere apology and prob sets up some sort of benefit for underserved communities wrapped up in a hypothetical future business model. I could see it. Two years is a long time in the modern news cycle. People will have long moved on and you’re correct he has talent to offer potential QBs.
I’m assuming Gruden is a macho meathead who fancies himself a renegade with nothing left to lose.
If I had to guess Gruden wants most of all to get back in. It is nor realistic, but guys like him (Bill Burr has a great bit an Arnold) have beaten the odds all their lives. As hopeless as it looks he wants to talk football on TV or coach again. Inside his noggin he knows he's the best, and any team is crazy not to want him.
So I expect he will take money, and not hurt the NFL, and go home just knowing some smart owner that wants to win, man, will call him soon.
So I expect he will take money, and not hurt the NFL, and go home just knowing some smart owner that wants to win, man, will call him soon.
I'm still struggling to see that he even has a valid cause of action.
"They treated me different than the other shitbags" is not a claim.
Suing "just to get the rest of the emails public" is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
Theres no discovery unless and until the NFLs motion to dismiss is denied.
"They treated me different than the other shitbags" is not a claim.
Suing "just to get the rest of the emails public" is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
Theres no discovery unless and until the NFLs motion to dismiss is denied.
Link to complaint is in this earlier post. I don't know what state's law applies, and what the difference might be, but here's my take on his claims:
(1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (first claim). The claim is artfully pleaded to allege that the NFL "intended, and their acts and omissions described herein were designed, to disrupt Plaintiff’s contractual relationships." (Paragraph 77.) I don't think that makes out a claim. They need to allege that as a result of the NFL's conduct, the Raiders (or others) breached their agreement with Gruden, not just that the contracts were "disrupted." We don't have the contracts, but presumably there are provisions in the agreement that give the Raiders (and endorsement deals) the right to fire him for reasons related to public image or good of the team. Note he is not suing the Raiders for wrongful termination or breach of the agreement. If there is no breach (at least under New York law) there cannot be tortious interference with contract. There is also an issue with respect to "wrongfulness" of the NFL's conduct, though that probably becomes an issue of fact at some point. Is it wrongful to surface these facts, in an attempt to ferret out these kinds of attitudes in the league? Maybe not, but was that the true motivation? Or was it actually to inflict injury on Gruden? That seems like it could be a valid dispute, but this claim probably doesn't survive long enough without a breach to get into that.
(2) Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (second claim). The core of the allegation is not that the NFL caused a breach, but that it wrongfully and deliberately injured Gruden's economic interests more broadly. This claim doesn't require a breach of a contract, but has a different problem: here, you have to show that the alleged conduct was solely intended to injure the other party. If the NFL had mixed motivations, the claim probably goes down. So, for example, if they see these emails and say "what happens if this leaks out, and it turns out we knew about it and did nothing?" then the fact that they also wanted to see Gruden go down (for these emails or other reasons) may not be enough to substantiate the claim. If they say "this is horrible stuff. He shouldn't be near a locker room. We need to get this out," the claim probably goes down. If they say "what an asshole. He should be out of the league and fuck him and his endorsement deals," the claim probably goes down. On the other hand, if there are emails where Goodell says "hahahaha these are hilarious, what a guy! But I hate the fact that he makes so much money let's sink him," then you may have a case. Seems hard to imagine this is factually what happened, but this claim could survive a dismissal motion and get into discovery. As a practical matter, it's going to be very hard to prove that unearthing racist screeds in an effort to "clean up the league" or hold people accountable is solely motivated by a desire to injure them.
(3) Negligence. I don't understand the theory here. What is the league's duty to Gruden in conducting this investigation? Maybe the league has a duty to WFT or its employees in how it investigates the Snyder issues, but it's hard for me to understand how that runs to Gruden. Without a legal duty, there's no negligence.
(4) Negligent Hiring and Supervision. These claims seem even more far-fetched to me, because they hinge on the presumption of an underlying tort (which I haven't really seen pleaded clearly--maybe the second claim), and that the NFL either knew or should have known that those individuals would engage in that conduct or had a propensity for it. This is going to be very difficult, and I don't really see how it gets Gruden anything more than the allegations of underlying tort by the individuals acting on behalf of the NFL. Same with aiding and abetting.
In a hometown state court, the complaint will likely stick--in part. I think the first and third claims get tossed without a breach of contract identified, and without an identifiable legal duty of the league to Gruden personally. The others are just colorable enough to remain, but that's all that Gruden probably needs to accomplish whatever it is he's trying to achieve.
I expect that most of the salient communications--about the investigation, and what to do about Gruden--are going to be withheld based on privilege. Without communications specifically about this investigation, which will be withheld, making the claim based on general communications about Gruden is going to be tough. I don't think there's any world where this is considered a "frivolous" lawsuit though.
Last edited:
You are probably right about frivolous, but I still think the entire thing is dismissable at MtD stage. *Maybe* the tortious interference claim stands based on the allegations. But I'm having a hard time seeing it.
As for a local judge, and without doing research, I think this case ends up in federal court. I think Gruden's "jurisdictional statement" -- that the NFL has a team in Nevada and makes money there -- is obviously enough to get jurisdiction in the state court, but the assertion that the "NFL is a citizen of Nevada" is only a legal conclusion that looks like an attempt to pre-defeat removal. I suspect the league will remove it to fed court within the 30 days it's allowed and Gruden will have to convince the fed court to send it back. I'm somewhat surprised Davis/Raiders isnt a defendant, as that would keep the case in state court. (tl;dr for the non-lawyers...if the suit is between citizens of different states, the defendants can remove it from state court to federal court, where, the theory goes, "home court advantage" is less of a thing.. "citizen" is a legal term of art.)
EDIT: Posted before I read Florio on removal.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/11/15/nfls-business-structure-will-make-it-much-harder-to-remove-jon-gruden-lawsuit-to-federal-court/
https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/nfl-s-status-as-unincorporated-association-may-bar-removal-of-gruden-lawsuit-to-federal-court
Last edited:
Not sure he's the guy to be throwing stones, but imagine leaving Art Briles' Baylor and thinking "wow, this new place is pretty messed up."
to take away the spotlight on snyder cant have an owner be in trouble ....not allowed