Yeah.. but one thing leads to another. If the players are found not to have participated in a play to injure and merely a pay for performance..(just like everyone else..). wouldn't it make a case that Goodell went way over the top on the coaches based on what he thought occurred?
I know he can't be forced to reduce the punishments of the coaches but wouldn't he really look bad in front of his bosses/media if he did not reconsider in light of the real truth that seems to be coming out?
I hope the media that has the cajones will pick this up and start questioning the severe coach punishments... CRANK THE HEAT WAY UP!
I love this line of thought, but I don't believe that is what is going on here. If the judge rules in favor of Vilma, she isn't saying Vilma is innocent/there was no bounty/ it was only a pay for performance and not a pay to injure--- No, she is saying that Vilma deserves an injunction from suspension (until Vilma's legal battles come to closure) because she believes there is merit to his case (future legal battles) and she doesn't believe Goodell has the authority to have imposed the discipline he imposed under the CBA.
Whichever decision she makes doesn't invalidate or refute any of the NFL's findings - it only confirms or denies whether Vilma deserves an injunction.
Superchuck500 said it better:
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500
It isn't a "voiding of the discipline" that would ordered by the judge. If she grants Vilma's injunction, that is simply lifting the suspension temporarily while the case about the appeal goes forward in court. Ultimately, if Vilma wins that case, I believe that it would be remanded for a new arbitration under the CBA. The judge cannot actually void the discipline or insert her own decision on the bounty case itself.
And this result would arise under the standards applicable to CBA-sanctioned arbitrations. The coaches' suspensions were not the result of any arbitration and not subject to a CBA. They, therefore, would not have the same recourse.
__________________ I am not a sinner because I commit sins; rather, I commit sins because I am a sinner-- it's in my nature. Would you be convicted in court of being Christian? Happiness is shared. Stop wearing your wishbone where your backbone ought to be.
It isn't a "voiding of the discipline" that would ordered by the judge. If she grants Vilma's injunction, that is simply lifting the suspension temporarily while the case about the appeal goes forward in court. Ultimately, if Vilma wins that case, I believe that it would be remanded for a new arbitration under the CBA. The judge cannot actually void the discipline or insert her own decision on the bounty case itself.
And this result would arise under the standards applicable to CBA-sanctioned arbitrations. The coaches' suspensions were not the result of any arbitration and not subject to a CBA. They, therefore, would not have the same recourse.
Chuck,
Strictly from pieces of the suits currently in progress it seems like there is some ambiguity in the CBA that allows Goodell to decide what and when an action is a detriment to the league. It does not appear the PA had the same understanding of this area of the CBA as the league.
If this understanding is correct, could a court invaidate this part of a CBA due to the ambiguity and force them to go back to the table to clarify?
The best chance of getting our coaches back is if Vilma wins his case in court and NFL rpoved to truly be a "sham" and Benson's investigation proves the same thing. Then if Benson stands up and say's, "I'm mad as h#ll and not gonna take it anymore".
My dream scenario.
Unfortunately if Vilma did win his case it wouldn't happen until next year. No chance we see SP coach this season, the court system just doesn't move that fast. Remember how long the Starcaps case took? I know it sucks but that's reality.
there is pay for performance at every level of every organization in america
employee of the month? gets a giftcard to starbucks etc
high school football team practices hard all week......coach takes them out to eat
little league baseball.....ice cream after the games
its all pay for performance. this is not a crime
It's not a crime, but it is against the rules. Had Goodell talked to the coaches and players before his decision, then this would be moot. I still look for the fines to be reduced as an "incentive" to show he can be reasonable.
__________________
Oh God, can\'t this town go one day without a riot? Mayor Joe Quimby.
\"Ah the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of the History Channel.\"HJ Simpson
Strictly from pieces of the suits currently in progress it seems like there is some ambiguity in the CBA that allows Goodell to decide what and when an action is a detriment to the league. It does not appear the PA had the same understanding of this area of the CBA as the league.
If this understanding is correct, could a court invaidate this part of a CBA due to the ambiguity and force them to go back to the table to clarify?
No, I think rather than invalidating anything, the CBA calls for arbitration to resolve ambiguities or disputes as to the meaning of the terms in the agreement.
The coaches did go union. But it is optional, and Payton did not join.
It's really more of a trade association. I'm not totally sure, but I don't think coaches can form a union because they are not labor - they're management.
Chuck, would it be possible for you to project a timeline ( your best guess) of dates we might expect for the resolutions of both of Vilma's suits if the initial findings are in his favor? We can assume there will be appeals on both sides I guess, but if Judge Berrigan should find in his favor (a huge if, as you have stated) then how long before the appeal is heard? What about the defamation suit? Months? Years?Thank you. (if you have already discussed this, I never saw it and apologize).
Coaches can still unionize. Even though they might be called management, but they are also employees. They have individual contracts and could decide to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their employment. Not that I see this happening.
__________________ Our Home. Our Team. Be a Saint.
Chuck, would it be possible for you to project a timeline ( your best guess) of dates we might expect for the resolutions of both of Vilma's suits if the initial findings are in his favor? We can assume there will be appeals on both sides I guess, but if Judge Berrigan should find in his favor (a huge if, as you have stated) then how long before the appeal is heard? What about the defamation suit? Months? Years?Thank you. (if you have already discussed this, I never saw it and apologize).
It's very hard to predict because there is a lot swirling around in these cases, and they're really two different kinds of proceedings: the case about the appeal/arbitration is not a standard proceeding, but rather more of a summary nature given the limited scope upon which the judge can review the arbitration decision. The defamation case, on the other hand, is a more typical tort case that will require more extensive proceedings (if she doesn't throw it out on jurisdictional grounds). The cases are still in a preliminary posture at this point. But the judge wants to resolve the initial motions (motion for injunction, motions to dismiss) in relatively short order. I don't have the court's orders about scheduling in front of me right now, but the briefing on the two motions to dismiss is still underway. It sounds like she wants to make the jurisdictional determinations at the same time - which would be mid-August at the earliest, and will likely require another hearing on the league's motion.
If she doesn't throw it all out, it will proceed into litigation (past the preliminary phase). At that point there will be an initial scheduling order that will give us a sense of the time it will take. Of course, there's always the chance of additional dispositive motions later (motions that, if granted, would end the case).
Appeal is also hard to predict. If the judge finds jurisdiction and allows either or both case(s) to proceed, the denial of the league's motion would not be immediately appealable (absent certification from the Court - which is discretionary). There are still ways to seek discretionary appellate relief at that point but it's hard to predict. If the judge declines to find jurisdiction and dismisses either case, appeal could proceed at that point.
Does that clear it up for you? Ha! Or did it just give you a headache.
Coaches can still unionize. Even though they might be called management, but they are also employees. They have individual contracts and could decide to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their employment. Not that I see this happening.
Actually, the question isn't whether they are management or employees - the question is whether they meet the qualifications as supervisors under the NLRA. Here are the factors, and you only need one to qualify:
Quote:
any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
So I suppose that some lower level coaches may be in a gray area and could maybe unionize. But most coaches would probably qualify as supervisors and head coaches would definitely qualify.
Chuck, are you saying that even if JB allows Vilma's case to be tried and she sets a date, the NFL can still file motion(s) that she has to hear and she could possibly dismiss the trial she initially allowed based on her findings on the motions? Mind = reeling!!
Chuck, are you saying that even if JB allows Vilma's case to be tried and she sets a date, the NFL can still file motion(s) that she has to hear and she could possibly dismiss the trial she initially allowed based on her findings on the motions? Mind = reeling!!
There are different kinds of motions. A motion to dismiss is a preliminary motion that challenges threshold issues that are required for a case to go forward (e.g. jurisdiction, a recognized cause of action, proper venue, proper service, etc.). That's the phase we're in now.
Later in the case, either party can file a motion for summary judgment that will ask the court to determine that there are no material facts in dispute and that judgment is warranted as a matter of law. For instance, (hypothetically!) in this case the judge could deny the motion to dismiss in the defamation case, finding that the tort claim is not preempted by the CBA. But she could also later rule in Goodell's favor on a motion for summary judgment if he makes the case that Vilma can put forth no evidence of malice - which is required under the legal standard for defaming a public figure. As such, Goodell is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. If she agreed, she would grant the motion and dismiss the case - and this would happen some time before the trial.
That's just a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how the motion for summary judgment would work. So yes, the point is that there is still a possibility of a motion to end the case at a later juncture - after the preliminary motion phase but before trial.
I am not a sinner because I commit sins; rather, I commit sins because I am a sinner-- it's in my nature. Would you be convicted in court of being Christian? Happiness is shared. Stop wearing your wishbone where your backbone ought to be.
Our Home. Our Team. Be a Saint.
Linear Mode
