N/S Goodell trying to use "conduct detrimenta to the leaguel" again in Al Jazeera conflict (1 Viewer)

Sumdude34

All-Pro
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
3,779
Age
29
Location
Mid City
Offline
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/t...the-nflpa-over-al-jazeera-case-000616194.html

Rodger is threatening to suspend these guys indefinitely because they won't interview with him. Interesting read. Seems like Rodger is getting the claws out since the win against Brady in court. They article makes a great point though that the NFL really has no Real ground to suspend these guys on. So, because of that Rodger is getting the phantom "conduct determental to the league" charges to get what he wants.
 
I'm pretty tired of seeing Roger bullying these players and clubs around. Does he not see that fans are growing weary of it?
 
Apparently Rodger doesn't realize that his own conduct is detrimental to the league.

The guy is the definition of a tool.
 
Gotta hit the owners in the jewels or they will never get rid of this clown, calling for a strike is the only weapon they have...the 4th preseason game works for me.
 
Look, I am with every one in the 'Rodger is a terrible pile of failure' camp...

BUT... The charges are serious, the source is not ignorable, the players involved are front and center in the league. I think it is reasonable the the NFL should be able to compel some for of cooperation from the players while they investigate.

This is totally the bed Goodell has made for the NFL, but, specifically for this issue, the players are not exactly on the moral high ground.
 
Gotta hit the owners in the jewels or they will never get rid of this clown, calling for a strike is the only weapon they have...the 4th preseason game works for me.

So you would be OK if the 2016 football season was cancelled or lost because the players called a strike to protest the power that was given to Roger Goodell in the CBA.

If the players were to call a strike it would not be for just one preseason game it would most likely mean forfeiting this season or a good part of the season. The owners are not going to reduce Roger Goodells power to keep from losing one preseason game.
 
it would be sweet if someone secretly recorded him dropping the N bomb.
 
So you would be OK if the 2016 football season was cancelled or lost because the players called a strike to protest the power that was given to Roger Goodell in the CBA.

If the players were to call a strike it would not be for just one preseason game it would most likely mean forfeiting this season or a good part of the season. The owners are not going to reduce Roger Goodells power to keep from losing one preseason game.

I may be wrong, but I think he was joking around by saying that.
 
So you would be OK if the 2016 football season was cancelled or lost because the players called a strike to protest the power that was given to Roger Goodell in the CBA.

If the players were to call a strike it would not be for just one preseason game it would most likely mean forfeiting this season or a good part of the season. The owners are not going to reduce Roger Goodells power to keep from losing one preseason game.

not what i said...one preseason game is what i said and that's what i mean, everything else is your interpretation.
 
Look, I am with every one in the 'Rodger is a terrible pile of failure' camp...

BUT... The charges are serious, the source is not ignorable, the players involved are front and center in the league. I think it is reasonable the the NFL should be able to compel some for of cooperation from the players while they investigate.

This is totally the bed Goodell has made for the NFL, but, specifically for this issue, the players are not exactly on the moral high ground.

You may not have heard this, but the author of the Al Jazeera article has publicly retracted his accusations.
 
Look, I am with every one in the 'Rodger is a terrible pile of failure' camp...

BUT... The charges are serious, the source is not ignorable, the players involved are front and center in the league. I think it is reasonable the the NFL should be able to compel some for of cooperation from the players while they investigate.

This is totally the bed Goodell has made for the NFL, but, specifically for this issue, the players are not exactly on the moral high ground.

from a PFT article:

"Never mind the fact that the PED policy says nothing about an obligation to cooperate in an investigation regarding a potential violation of the PED policy due to something other than a positive test or an alleged or actual violation of the law.
As written, the PED policy seems to give players the right to refuse to say anything until the NFL has developed sufficient “credible evidence” to justify the imposition of discipline. Then, if the player chooses to appeal, he tells his story within the confines of the appeal process."

hence, the crux of the problem. there are no charges leveled by the NFL.

NFL prepares to use Brady precedent to force cooperation with PED investigation | ProFootballTalk
 
So you would be OK if the 2016 football season was cancelled or lost because the players called a strike to protest the power that was given to Roger Goodell in the CBA.

If the players were to call a strike it would not be for just one preseason game it would most likely mean forfeiting this season or a good part of the season. The owners are not going to reduce Roger Goodells power to keep from losing one preseason game.

Yes! Eventually, his power has to be checked and if a cancellation of the season is the only way to do it, then so be it. Every now and again, labor has got to triumph over management.
 
Look at it from the league's POV. Your reputation is already tarnished, try to get everything you possibly can by the next CBA, then you have more to work with from a negotiating standpoint with the Player's Union. Then when people get angry you just fire Goodall. Firing Goodell is a good scapegoat from a public appearance standpoint if needed, and possibly why he's still around.
 
This is all based off of a statement by a guy, who has subsequently redacted said statement.

The players, in accordance to the CBA, have no responsibility to comply with the leagues request for an interview because there is no compelling evidence. Furthermore, they've all sent affidavits to the league, which the league rejected.

Roger likes to strong-arm people. He probably feels that, since he currently has no evidence, he can probably get them to miss speak just enough to use it against them. He can't do that without an interview. So, what he's basically doing is saying "guilty until proven innocent".

Punishing players just off of someone else's word...that's opening a Pandoras box that shouldn't be opened.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom