If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   NFL offers to cut suspensions by up to half for Bounty-gate players if Vilma can man up   (espn.go.com) divider line 90
    More: Unlikely, Jonathan Vilma, NFL, Ed Werder, suspensions, Roger Goodell, Anthony Hargrove, Scott Fujita, Roman Harper  
•       •       •

2447 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Aug 2012 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 09:11:46 AM
This could be a bad, bad precedent being set by the NFL right here.
 
2012-08-06 09:28:40 AM
Submitter missed a chance to make a "sack up" pun right there.
 
2012-08-06 09:37:55 AM
fark him. keep the full suspension.
 
2012-08-06 10:08:29 AM
I'm guessing the NFL doesn't want to lose control of what information they divulge. Unlike the internal appeals process where Goodell got to hand pick what information to disclose to the players, everything the league has done with regard to this would be subject to the rules of discovery, and Judge Berrigan is probably the best judge Vilma and the NLFPA could have ended up with of all the judges in the Eastern District. Maybe the NFL's case isn't as strong as it has maintained.
 
2012-08-06 10:17:01 AM
I'm sure the Saints defense is glad they'll be able to collect some bounties 8 games sooner.
 
2012-08-06 10:18:24 AM
If the NFL is backing away from its original position so fast, knowing full well that Surface Tension is absolutely right about what a bad precedent it would be, the NFL's case must be very very weak.

ManateeGag: fark him. keep the full suspension.


Not gonna happen. The NFL went completely overboard on this and at least one player was man enough to stand up to them.
 
2012-08-06 10:27:04 AM

Nabb1: I'm guessing the NFL doesn't want to lose control of what information they divulge. Unlike the internal appeals process where Goodell got to hand pick what information to disclose to the players, everything the league has done with regard to this would be subject to the rules of discovery, and Judge Berrigan is probably the best judge Vilma and the NLFPA could have ended up with of all the judges in the Eastern District. Maybe the NFL's case isn't as strong as it has maintained.


We might find out that other teams also had bounty programs, but the Saints were a good candidate to use as an example. The NFL wants this to be an isolated incident.
 
2012-08-06 10:28:23 AM

Galloping Galoshes: If the NFL is backing away from its original position so fast, knowing full well that Surface Tension is absolutely right about what a bad precedent it would be, the NFL's case must be very very weak.

ManateeGag: fark him. keep the full suspension.

Not gonna happen. The NFL went completely overboard on this and at least one player was man enough to stand up to them.


All of this.

If they're throwing around a settlement offer like this one, then Vilma's case has legs.
 
2012-08-06 10:31:54 AM

Nabb1: I'm guessing the NFL doesn't want to lose control of what information they divulge. Unlike the internal appeals process where Goodell got to hand pick what information to disclose to the players, everything the league has done with regard to this would be subject to the rules of discovery, and Judge Berrigan is probably the best judge Vilma and the NLFPA could have ended up with of all the judges in the Eastern District. Maybe the NFL's case isn't as strong as it has maintained.


Wasn't that the original reason Vilma filed the suit? He wanted to know what they had on him, but they flat out refused to release the info?
 
2012-08-06 10:33:17 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Nabb1: I'm guessing the NFL doesn't want to lose control of what information they divulge. Unlike the internal appeals process where Goodell got to hand pick what information to disclose to the players, everything the league has done with regard to this would be subject to the rules of discovery, and Judge Berrigan is probably the best judge Vilma and the NLFPA could have ended up with of all the judges in the Eastern District. Maybe the NFL's case isn't as strong as it has maintained.

We might find out that other teams also had bounty programs, but the Saints were a good candidate to use as an example. The NFL wants this to be an isolated incident.


There's no question that other teams had "pay-for-performance" schemes like this. Many current and former players have confirmed this. What I suspect is that the NFL used the Saints case to conflate it into the injury thing, and now they realize while their paper trail confirms that there was a kitty for big plays, their "intent to injure" evidence is too weak to stand up in court.
 
2012-08-06 10:34:26 AM

Aarontology: Nabb1: I'm guessing the NFL doesn't want to lose control of what information they divulge. Unlike the internal appeals process where Goodell got to hand pick what information to disclose to the players, everything the league has done with regard to this would be subject to the rules of discovery, and Judge Berrigan is probably the best judge Vilma and the NLFPA could have ended up with of all the judges in the Eastern District. Maybe the NFL's case isn't as strong as it has maintained.

Wasn't that the original reason Vilma filed the suit? He wanted to know what they had on him, but they flat out refused to release the info?


Yes, and even after the "appeal", the NFLPA reps all condemned the evidence as being too thin. I think Goodell underestimated the fight the NFLPA would put up on this.
 
2012-08-06 10:40:58 AM
I'm guessing the NFL doesn't have the evidence required to prove the accusation in court. Something is fishy here and it stinks more than Garrett Reid.
 
2012-08-06 10:52:14 AM

ManateeGag: fark him. keep the full suspension.


Why? It seems like even the NFL itself has realized it farked up.
 
2012-08-06 10:56:57 AM
From the article:

NFL: "No such offer was made."

They're either trying to keep it on the downlow, or no such offer was made.
 
2012-08-06 10:59:34 AM
The NFL just blinked.
 
2012-08-06 11:00:59 AM

Dog Welder: From the article:

NFL: "No such offer was made."

They're either trying to keep it on the downlow, or no such offer was made.


It goes like this:

NFL Lawyer: "Listen, your client has no case and the league is firm on this, but in the interest of just shutting it down, would your client take an eight-game reduction in his suspension to drop his suit? I can't offer it right now, but if I knew your client would take it, I'll push the commissioner on it and see what I can get." [Translation: Commissioner already told NFL Lawyer to make that offer, but not in a binding fashion.]

Vilma lawyer: "I'll take it to my client and get back you." [Translation: I smell your fear.]
 
2012-08-06 11:02:22 AM

Nabb1: Yes, and even after the "appeal", the NFLPA reps all condemned the evidence as being too thin. I think Goodell underestimated the fight the NFLPA would put up on this.


I think the last few years, especially the recent lockout, put a fire in the belly of the NFLPA. Especially for something like this which seems to be more about saving face for the NFL than for actual player safety.
 
2012-08-06 11:17:34 AM

Aarontology: Nabb1: Yes, and even after the "appeal", the NFLPA reps all condemned the evidence as being too thin. I think Goodell underestimated the fight the NFLPA would put up on this.

I think the last few years, especially the recent lockout, put a fire in the belly of the NFLPA. Especially for something like this which seems to be more about saving face for the NFL than for actual player safety.


The "player safety" issue is about the looming avalanche of suits from former players suffering from the effects of repeated head trauma. The Saints gave the Commissioner the opportunity to look very tough and very serious about "player safety" so that when he gets in depositions in these cases he can point to how tough he was. That becomes problematic if he has to go into all those details about the Saints case in the discovery process for Vilma's suit.
 
2012-08-06 11:28:46 AM
Looking like making it public, got the offer taken off the table. Probably more bad blood, I am guessing now that con Vilma into a trap where he get caught lying under oath.

Goodell and crew are lawyers, and understand the system. Vilma is too worried about saving face.
 
2012-08-06 11:37:35 AM

overfienduglar: Goodell and crew are lawyers, and understand the system. Vilma is too worried about saving face.


Goodell and crew are human, make mistakes, bad judgements, have tempers, etc., and are working for a large corporation. They have a lot more to lose than Vilma. Vilma is working for himself and defending his character. If he's sincere, it's not about "face", it's about "name." He's defending his good name, and some people will go down with their colors nailed to the mast for that. If Vilma is one of those, that makes him a formidable opponent to a lawyer who's used to bargaining to reach an outcome. Vilma may not be open to bargaining if it's his name he's defending. It'll be all or nothing for him. They'll think he's bluffing for a better deal, and I'm guessing they'll panic and fold rather than have their nonsense come out in discovery.
 
2012-08-06 11:49:52 AM

spentmiles: I'm guessing the NFL doesn't have the evidence required to prove the accusation in court. Something is fishy here and it stinks more than Garrett Reid.


Too soon dude.

Try it again on Friday. Give the stink a bit of time to develop.

/eagles fan
//with aisle seat ticket
 
2012-08-06 12:06:08 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Vilma is working for himself and defending his character. If he's sincere, it's not about "face", it's about "name." He's defending his good name, and some people will go down with their colors nailed to the mast for that.


Vilma also stands to lose more money this year than you or I will make in a lifetime. Combined.

And if he has to sit an entire year, it's doubtful he'll get a chance to make that money next year, either.
 
2012-08-06 12:10:38 PM

ongbok: The NFL just blinked.


www.twofedoras.com

/now if Vilma and the NFLPA just go for the sack....
 
2012-08-06 12:18:09 PM

ManateeGag: fark him. keep the full suspension.


...and then get your anti-trust exemption revoked when the courts say you went overboard.
 
2012-08-06 12:23:03 PM

JustGetItRight: Galloping Galoshes: If the NFL is backing away from its original position so fast, knowing full well that Surface Tension is absolutely right about what a bad precedent it would be, the NFL's case must be very very weak.

ManateeGag: fark him. keep the full suspension.

Not gonna happen. The NFL went completely overboard on this and at least one player was man enough to stand up to them.

All of this.

If they're throwing around a settlement offer like this one, then Vilma's case has legs.


What if the offer is just being floated to try and turn public opinion to him?

The only thing I see is that the NFL doesn't want this to be able to see resolution in a courtroom since that will cripple their ability to punish players for hits. One guy gets 4 games for a hit then another guy gets 2 games for almost the exact same hit, one guy will argue its not fair and try to sue them again if this works.
I think the NFL wants everything dismissed but they got the wrong judge so I'm not sure he will do that.
 
2012-08-06 12:24:26 PM

OtherLittleGuy: ongbok: The NFL just blinked.

[www.twofedoras.com image 400x300]

/now if Vilma and the NFLPA just go for the sack....


Tough gamble. If he takes the deal, he recoups about 2.5M of his lost salary. But he'll also essentially be admitting guilt.

If he doesn't take the deal, he looks damn innocent, but he could still potentially lose his whole $5M salary.
 
2012-08-06 12:26:38 PM

steamingpile: I think the NFL wants everything dismissed but they got the wrong judge so I'm not sure he will do that.


I think you mean "she." Judge Berrigan is a woman. Or did you mean "he" as in Vilma?
 
2012-08-06 12:31:30 PM

Slow To Return: Vilma also stands to lose more money this year than you or I will make in a lifetime. Combined.


No, I don't think so. He's only scheduled to make $3.3 million in 12/13.
/Unless you're one of those welfare queens.
 
2012-08-06 12:33:04 PM
i63.photobucket.com

My 50,000 18,000 12,000 200 pages of evidence is still solid and I'd have no problem showing it in discovery, swearsies!

What a pathetic headline to use for such a story. I guess when someone's been licking boots, they have to go down with the ship.

2 games, a public statement that this punishment is for pay-for-performance and not pay-to-injure as their evidence does not support it, and Coach Payton and Vitt's suspensions taken away. Otherwise, eat a dick and we're gonna see why Judge Berrigan used the term "borderline ridiculous" with your lawyers, Roger.
 
2012-08-06 12:34:46 PM

Galloping Galoshes: No, I don't think so. He's only scheduled to make $3.3 million in 12/13.
/Unless you're one of those welfare queens.


I make $675,200 a year, but I was being overly dramatic to make a point.

What of it?
 
2012-08-06 12:34:50 PM
First, lets be clear, they're attempting to overturn one portion of the punishment, the pay for injury portion. There has been no contest to the the fact that they were illegally paying players under the table for performance. That is against the rules and everyone involved was punished for it.

I find this deal unlikely because then it opens the floodgates for future ligitation against Goodell when his punishments are not agreed with, which is never.

If there was any offers like this on the table and Vilma didn't instantly jump on them, he's even dumber than he's looked over the past 3 months, which is somewhere under the line of mental retardation.
 
2012-08-06 12:35:25 PM
Fark them, bring criminal charges against the NFL for attempted bribery along with the defamation and breach of contract. Make the NFL prove their case in a real court instead of the Mickey Mouse bullshiat they are pulling now. the other involved players should follow suit unless they know for 100% certainty that the league has undeniable proof.
 
2012-08-06 12:37:31 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Slow To Return: Vilma also stands to lose more money this year than you or I will make in a lifetime. Combined.

No, I don't think so. He's only scheduled to make $3.3 million in 12/13.
/Unless you're one of those welfare queens.


Average salary in the United States is about $50,000 a year. Even working for 40 years will only net you $2 million
 
2012-08-06 12:38:41 PM

justtray: If there was any offers like this on the table and Vilma didn't instantly jump on them, he's even dumber than he's looked over the past 3 months, which is somewhere under the line of mental retardation.


Yeah, Vilma really looks dumb fighting a suspension that the league suddenly wants to compromise on now that discovery might be looming.
 
2012-08-06 12:39:36 PM

Slow To Return: Galloping Galoshes: No, I don't think so. He's only scheduled to make $3.3 million in 12/13.
/Unless you're one of those welfare queens.

I make $675,200 a year, but I was being overly dramatic to make a point.

What of it?


A little too dramatic. You're ignoring the diminishing utility of a $ as income rises; also, for some, a good name is more important than more cash.
 
2012-08-06 12:40:23 PM

Bunnyhat: Galloping Galoshes: Slow To Return: Vilma also stands to lose more money this year than you or I will make in a lifetime. Combined.

No, I don't think so. He's only scheduled to make $3.3 million in 12/13.
/Unless you're one of those welfare queens.

Average salary in the United States is about $50,000 a year. Even working for 40 years will only net you $2 million


I am not average, nor have I ever been. And I don't have 2.3 kids, either.
 
2012-08-06 12:41:11 PM

Galloping Galoshes: You're ignoring the diminishing utility of a $ as income rises


OMFG DID I????

Well shoot me now.
 
2012-08-06 12:43:14 PM

Galloping Galoshes: I am not average, nor have I ever been. And I don't have 2.3 kids, either.


Jesus dude, it's an internet forum, not an economics disseratation.

Point being, there's a few dollars at stake for Vilma.
 
2012-08-06 12:58:57 PM
Lemme get this straight:

Alleged bounty program occurs. NFL finds out, goes apeshiat in the name of "promoting player safety". Player fights back, insisting he's been defamed. Goodell throws 200 pages of "evidence" at player, player sustains head injury. Player sues NFL because he can't see anything other than purple. NFL claims only frost giants can cause head injuries, and you don't see any of them around, do you? Player provides a ledger detailing Goodell's deviant sexual practices, both parties back down, and agree that the Browns can be allowed to win the Superbowl, but will be required to move to El Paso the following season.
 
2012-08-06 12:59:14 PM
On the subject of the Saints, all I hear is "OMG NO SEAN PAYTON = NO WINS! SAINTS WILL BE 7-9!"

Honestly, I don't see how drastically the loss of Payton will affect the Saints that much. I still think they'll win 10 games. A team with a lesser quality QB would be, but not New Orleans. If the head coach is offense-minded, I think the QB is basically an extension of him. Given that your QB is Drew Freakin' Brees, I think you'll be just fine.

Same thing with the Patriots. If Belichick got punished for Spygate, the Patriots would have been a 10-win team because of Brady.

/not a Saints fan
//or am I an idiot completely undervaluing the head coach?
 
2012-08-06 01:06:29 PM

star_topology: //or am I an idiot completely undervaluing the head coach?


You're ignoring all the other issues, so it's tough to say. Like the defensive players that were suspended, the other coaches that were suspended, the fact that they're probably going to get fewer "benefit of the doubt" calls (the Raiders probably get less of these than anyone, and I don't like them), the fact that hey, the Saints have gone 7-9 and 8-8 with Brees in there before, so it's not unfathomable. Then there's the schedule, the likelihood of an improved division...well, I wouldn't be shocked if they went under .500.

/I also wouldn't be shocked if they went 11-5, however
//lots of wildcards we've never seen before
 
2012-08-06 01:06:31 PM

Slow To Return: Point being, there's a few dollars at stake for Vilma.


Counterpoint: He may care more about his name than the $. Some people do.
 
2012-08-06 01:08:01 PM

Slow To Return: Galloping Galoshes: You're ignoring the diminishing utility of a $ as income rises

OMFG DID I????

Well shoot me now.


Bang. Translation. Someone with $5 million in the bank cares a lot less about another dollar than a guy who only makes $50,000.
 
2012-08-06 01:12:43 PM

IAmRight: star_topology: //or am I an idiot completely undervaluing the head coach?

You're ignoring all the other issues, so it's tough to say. Like the defensive players that were suspended, the other coaches that were suspended, the fact that they're probably going to get fewer "benefit of the doubt" calls (the Raiders probably get less of these than anyone, and I don't like them), the fact that hey, the Saints have gone 7-9 and 8-8 with Brees in there before, so it's not unfathomable. Then there's the schedule, the likelihood of an improved division...well, I wouldn't be shocked if they went under .500.

/I also wouldn't be shocked if they went 11-5, however
//lots of wildcards we've never seen before


Good point. I don't know who would be the leader defensively, at least until Vitt comes back. I don't know enough about their current (non-suspended) personnel to project. But New England went all "Defense? Who needs that!?" a few years back, too, and it got them to the Super Bowl. Different circumstances, I know, but that is what I would expect NO to do this year (if not only for spite) scoring 30-40 a game before I would predict them to go .500 or worse.
 
2012-08-06 01:34:31 PM
I just wish there were some way Roger Goodell could be looking at jail time over this, and not because I think he's broken the law, but because I think he should be sodomized repeatedly.
 
2012-08-06 02:04:55 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Counterpoint: He may care more about his name than the $. Some people do.


Yup. Which is what makes it a gamble, which I thought I already said.

But maybe I didn't.
 
2012-08-06 02:14:33 PM
Don't cut the suspensions make an example of these asshats.
 
2012-08-06 02:21:22 PM

Slow To Return: Galloping Galoshes: Counterpoint: He may care more about his name than the $. Some people do.

Yup. Which is what makes it a gamble, which I thought I already said.

But maybe I didn't.


It's a gamble if he's playing for the money. If he's fighting for his name, it's a sure thing.
 
2012-08-06 02:22:57 PM
I love how ESPN can just cite "sources", despite the complete and utter lack of any corroborating evidence. What's the prevent them from just straight making shiat up? I swear half of the things from "sources" exist only on ESPN.
 
2012-08-06 02:27:47 PM

tortilla burger: I love how ESPN can just cite "sources", despite the complete and utter lack of any corroborating evidence. What's the prevent them from just straight making shiat up? I swear half of the things from "sources" exist only on ESPN.


You mean kind of like the "Mickey Loomis had a wiretap" story? ESPN is about as trustworthy as the Weekly World News.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report