Florio: Source: NFL "definitely" offered eight-game reduction to @JonVilma51

cue180 · 08-23-2012, 06:06 AM

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...tion-to-vilma/

Our source, who is in position to know, says it happened. It’s still not clear whether it was a formal offer or an implied — but nonetheless clear — indication that if Vilma would accept an eight-game reduction an eight-game reduction definitely would be available. Regardless, the source says Vilma could have had it, if he had wanted it.

Le_Moyne · 08-23-2012, 06:14 AM

The real question to me is whether Vilma is fitting for himself, the players or everyone. If he is only fighting for himself, 8 games wouldn't be too bad, but in a way, I hope that he is fighting for everyone, even if it means that he'll most likely loose everything and won't play at all this year. The only suspension we really need reduced is Payton, the rest don't matter that much.

andrew76021 · 08-23-2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

It’s believed, however, that the NFL’s lawyers hope to insulate Commissioner Roger Goodell from ever having to testify.

Oh how I want this day to come. As much as I would like to have him back this year, we need him to keep the pressure on the NFL so they are forced to reveal the ridiculousness of their evidence. Don't break Vilma. FINISH STRONG.

geauxboy · 08-23-2012, 06:23 AM

He's more fighting for his honor. I really don't see any solution that would restore Vilma's honor amongst the public. I think if I were him, I would continue the way he has because this goes way beyond what people think of you. This is about standing up for yourself regardless of the outcome. It's true that he is fighting an almost impossible fight, but that just shows the constitution this man has.

8 games or 16 really doesn't make much difference as far as the public is concerned. He's still guilty in the eyes of the public no matter the outcome.

Flipx99 · 08-23-2012, 06:50 AM

If he is just looking out for his career, or if he knows he is culpable, 8 games would be a deal he would have to take. (I don't know that he would be physically able much sooner than 8 games in anyway).

The fact that he refused a deal indicates it is, in fact, about his honor and that he believes he has nothing to fear from the true facts. Not only that, but he is willing to take that chance even though there are legal obstacles that may prevent the facts from ever seeing the light of day.

darren/pace · 08-23-2012, 07:09 AM

fitter than the comish not as yeller either

Denzien · 08-23-2012, 07:26 AM

It's a trap! This way Goodell can say, "I cut your suspension in half!" when no suspension seems warranted, as it's expressly forbidden by the CBA. It would also validate Goodell's process which might be overruled in arbitration on the 30th and all suspensions voided anyway.

AARPSaint · 08-23-2012, 07:34 AM

So much for the NFL's statement essentially denying that an offer was made or implied. It could have been hypothetical, such as , "Suppose we were to offer Vilma an 8-game reduction." IMHO the NFL's quasi-denial that an offer was made was another typical public relations effort to mislead the public. IIRC they said that no offer was made. Well, they still could have made it clear that they would offer it should Vilma drop the lawsuit.

As usual the NFL is playing legalistic games here. Actually, Florio's discovery that an offer was mentioned is not news at all, but it's good that he's keeping the story alive.

RaisingTheBar · 08-23-2012, 07:34 AM

GA denying again:

Greg Aiello ‏@gregaiello Again, reports about a settlement offer by the NFL to Jonathan Vilma are completely inaccurate. No such settlement offer has been made.

bornnraisedwhodat · 08-23-2012, 07:35 AM

More semantics

tarusman28 · 08-23-2012, 07:35 AM

I think Vilma is right by rejecting the 8 reduction in suspension because like someone said earlier, Vilma reputation is on the line and accepting the reduction is an admission of guilt.

Besides, I don't believe Goodell have any 'real' edvidence to prove there was a bounty program. Goodell is using the Saints as a scapegoat to ward off the concussion lawsuit with the former players. Goodell & NFL stance is that the players are responsible for their concussion issue and we 'the NFL' are simply trying to clean up the game and make it safer, despite the fact the NFL still want an 18 game regular season.

jbourque · 08-23-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaisingTheBar

GA denying again:

Greg Aiello ‏@gregaiello Again, reports about a settlement offer by the NFL to Jonathan Vilma are completely inaccurate. No such settlement offer has been made.

More lies....

JRead2 · 08-23-2012, 07:48 AM

Even if there was an offer, I don't think JV would take it. In my opinion, acceptance of a settlement offer would be seen as an acknowledgement of guilt. I would imaging JV sees it the same way, and will fight this to the bitter end. I find it hard to believe he would accept anything, when he has consistently stood by his statement that he did nothing wrong.

FLSaintsFan · 08-23-2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaisingTheBar

GA denying again:

Greg Aiello ‏@gregaiello Again, reports about a settlement offer by the NFL to Jonathan Vilma are completely inaccurate. No such settlement offer has been made.

You know, they probably didn't make a formal offer. They most likely had "informal" negotiation and discussion about reducing the suspension. Just so they could try to save face and say they didn't make any offers. They just make themselves look silly.

darkhornet · 08-23-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbourque

More lies....

Not exactly lies, just not the whole truth. This is the game the NFL has played all along in this fiasco.