Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The NFL has offered to reduce New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma's year-long suspension to eight games as part of ongoing settlement talks involving the league, the NFL Players Association and legal representatives for the four players who were suspended for their alleged participation in the team's bounty program from 2009-2011, according to sources familiar with the discussions.The league's offer was made late last week but it is conditional upon Vilma dropping a civil lawsuit charging commissioner Roger Goodell with defamation of character, sources said. Vilma has expressed his strong feelings about his tainted reputation. [...] Judge Berrigan expressed concerns about Goodell's actions during the first hearing in which seven members of the Saints testified that they never witnessed Vilma offering $10,000 to any teammate who injured opposing quarterbacks Kurt Warner and Brett Favre in the 2009-2010 playoffs. Those who testified also denied there was a pay-to-injure bounty program, including Saints interim head coach Joe Vitt, who will serve his own six-game suspension to open the season. While sources said league attorneys have urged Goodell to offer reductions in the suspensions as a settlement, a league official reiterated Goodell's position that if the players had participated fully in the appeals process, the commissioner may have reduced the penalties as he has with other players who have been disciplined in other cases. The league official also noted that the current legal proceeding began with a settlement conference. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8238319/sources-jonathan-vilma-suspension-reduced-withdraws-civil-suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins10 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I think this is the best Vilma can ask for, and it looks like his action against Goodell worked out the way he wanted. Honestly, good for him. He got Roger to blink first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 At the very least, it kinda puts a damper on all those comments about how Vilma should just "shut up" and accept his punishment cuz he looks like a fool otherwise lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I'm having trouble with something here. If the NFL releases its evidence the lawsuit and this issue simply goes away. Instead of simply doing that they are offering to reduce the punishment by 50% just to end Vilma's lawsuit and risking questions like this next one. Did the NFL claim to have evidence they never had and go ahead and suspend a player for an entire season anyway? If thats the case Goodell needs to be fired immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins10 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I'm having trouble with something here. If the NFL releases its evidence the lawsuit and this issue simply goes away. Instead of simply doing that they are offering to reduce the punishment by 50% just to end Vilma's lawsuit and risking questions like this next one. Did the NFL claim to have evidence they never had and go ahead and suspend a player for an entire season anyway?If thats the case Goodell needs to be fired immediately. Yup, if they actually had any evidence, they wouldn't need to negotiate with Vilma. Evidence released, Vilma can't sue for defamation. No evidence, they cut Vilma a deal. I have a feeling Goodell isn't going to be around for much longer in the wake of all of this. It's going to open up a whole new can of worms if he and his lawyers believed they couldn't put together what SHOULD be a cut and dry defamation defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I agree that it seems suspect. If Vilma is supposedly some monster who was offering up $10,000 to see his fellow players get carted off, why would the NFL ever reduce his suspension? Did they suddenly decide that it's really not THAT bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Gadsden Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Ya know, I've been in the "Shutup, accept that you got caught. Don't make it worse." crowd since this came out. But seeing a reduction on the suspension is beginning to make me suspicious. Like has been said above, if you have evidence...why are you laying down on this lawsuit? In Vilma's position however, the NFL side of me says he should take the reduction. However, the legal side says he should keep pushing. If he's suing for defamation, taking the reduction is essentially admitting guilt. To me that says "Whew, I got off, better take what I can get." Whereas, if he's innocent, he should accept nothing less than the full 16 games, or he should go for Goodell's job. If this case goes Vilma's way and shows that Goodell really had a lack of evidence to perform these suspensions...he should lose his job. That sounds like an overreaction, but given that he has been given enough power to become the NFL fuhrer, he should have a zero tolerance policy on his job. If he gets something wrong, there is no real appeal system. So it can not be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Now NFL.com is saying a "source close to the situation" claims the NFL made no settlement offer to Vilma, but that it "does not mean a proposal might not be made in the future." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000046175/article/source-jonathan-vilma-saints-lb-has-no-nfl-settlement-offer?module=HP11_headline_stack I'm not sure why the NFL would need to leak this type of info off the record...if they have not made a settlement offer and haven't even spoken to Vilma about it, why not just go on record and say so? If that's true then the NFL has absolutely nothing to lose by officially denying the report. Instead, we get this: NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league had no comment on the report. For the record, Peter King apparently also has a source ...sources galore, here...and King says "I'd heard the NFL also wanted Vilma to admit some culpability in the case, but that he's steadfast against that.." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/08/05/mmqb/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I'd take it if I were Vilma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 From PFT.com: In response to an ESPN.com report that the NFL has offered Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma a deal that would drop his one-game suspension to an eight-game ban in exchange for a dismissal of his lawsuits against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell, Steve Wyche of the league-owned media operation reports that the league “has made no settlement offer” to Vilma.It’s likely a potato-potahto situation. Even if no formal offer has been made, it’s entirely possible that the lawyers have made it clear that such an outcome would be available, if Vilma would accept it. That common approach provides plausible deniability where, in a case like this one, someone blabs about the non-offer offer. The fact that Vilma and/or someone close to him spilled the beans means that the offer may not be available any longer. It also means that Vilma and/or someone close to him likely doesn’t care, because Vilma has never said or done anything to suggest he’ll accept even an eight-play suspension. The league needs to throw water on this one quickly because the initial reaction has been that the NFL is showing weakness. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/06/report-vilma-has-no-settlement-offer/ ---------- Post added August-6th-2012 at 05:41 AM ---------- More from PFT: With Judge Helen G. Berrigan posing questions during a July 26 hearing that suggested she may be leaning toward lifting linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s suspension — and possibly overturning all of the suspensions later — the league reportedly has offered a middle ground. According to Ed Werder, Adam Schefter, and Chris Mortensen of ESPN.com (what, did they take turn typing the letters?), the NFL has offered to reduce Vilma’s suspension to eight games.Though Steve Wyche of NFL Network said on NFLAM said that no specific offer has been made, the report comes at a time when it makes sense to be talking about possible alternatives to a court-ordered outcome. The report also comes in the wake of a report by Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports that, if the NFLPA had cooperated with the league’s process, Vilma may have ultimately been suspended only four games. Setting aside for now the serious disconnect between legal gamesmanship and the notion of doing the right thing, the leak to Cole may have laid the foundation for the news of what could be characterized as backpedaling by the league office. Indeed, that’s the obvious initial reaction to the report from Werdscheftenson. The league by all appearances has blinked. Coupled with Cole’s report, the spin could be that the NFL is simply trying to finish this thing where it would have ended if Vilma hadn’t refused to participate in the process. When Commissioner Roger Goodell hammered Vilma et al., we suggested at some point the possibility that Goodell deliberately overshot with the penalties so that he could prove the appeal process works — even if it makes him look wishy-washy for second-guessing his initial decision. Vilma prevented that from happening by refusing to throw himself on the mercy of what the players regard as a kangaroo court.... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/06/report-league-offers-to-cut-vilmas-suspension-in-half/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wantarace17 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I was in the "take the sentence" camp at first too...but now that this is out I am very suspicious. It's very convenient after a lawsuit is issued the punishment is reduced if he takes a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I think this is the best Vilma can ask for, and it looks like his action against Goodell worked out the way he wanted. Honestly, good for him. He got Roger to blink first. why say that? This means Vilma has a good chance of getting this overturned in the courts. I dont think Vilma will accept this at all. ---------- Post added August-6th-2012 at 10:39 AM ---------- I'm having trouble with something here. If the NFL releases its evidence the lawsuit and this issue simply goes away. Instead of simply doing that they are offering to reduce the punishment by 50% just to end Vilma's lawsuit and risking questions like this next one. Did the NFL claim to have evidence they never had and go ahead and suspend a player for an entire season anyway?If thats the case Goodell needs to be fired immediately. bingo thats why I cant see Vilma accepting this. I think he has Goodell and his legal team scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 NOW the NFL decides to go on record lol... NFL senior VP of communications Greg Aiello: "Today's report about a settlement offer by the league to Jonathan Vilma is completely inaccurate. No such settlement offer has been made. We will continue to respect the court proceedings on this matter and have no further comment at this time." http://www.whosay.com/AdamSchefter/content/365739?wsref=tw&code=mQE3V05 I guess saying it through leaks wasn't getting the job done and the league realized a formal statement needed to be made to stem the tide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 NOW the NFL decides to go on record lol...http://www.whosay.com/AdamSchefter/content/365739?wsref=tw&code=mQE3V05 I guess saying it through leaks wasn't getting the job done and the league realized a formal statement needed to be made to stem the tide... It's embarrassing that the Commissioner of the National Football League has to cover up his arrogant mistakes with such ridiculous PR games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm looking at this correctly, Roger Goodell is using his job to basically offer somebody a favor in order not to be personally sued. Is that even legal? It definitely isn't ethical, at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Ol' Roger Dodger is being unethical, I agree. If it turns out to be illegal, he needs the TK "B to A". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm looking at this correctly, Roger Goodell is using his job to basically offer somebody a favor in order not to be personally sued. Is that even legal? It definitely isn't ethical, at the very least. That's definitely an interesting way of looking at it lol :yes:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm looking at this correctly, Roger Goodell is using his job to basically offer somebody a favor in order not to be personally sued. Is that even legal? It definitely isn't ethical, at the very least. Hate to defend Goodell, but not quite the same thing, because he is being sued for something he did in carrying out his normal job duties. I do think the NFL doesn't want this to go to discovery, thats what they are trying to get around. They are sort of stuck. Its not just the suspension ... its the issue that future employers may shy away from Vilma becasue of his involement in the alleged bounty system. Even a "reduced sentence" is basically Vilma admitting guilt. But they can't lift the suspensions and retract their claims. It would be a huge "oops" and huge black mark on if they did, they would lose all credibility in the future, and Goodell would probably have to resign. In the future I think NFL commissioners are going to be more careful about what the release to the public regarding player/coach suspensions, except for anything thats a "slam dunk" like the Vick case. I think Goodell even overreached on the six-game Roethlisberger suspension for the alleged assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Hate to defend Goodell, but not quite the same thing, because he is being sued for something he did in carrying out his normal job duties. Fair enough, but it still seems sketchy. I'm no lawyer and Goodell certain has many on payroll so I'm sure he's in the clear, but it doesn't sit well and it's going to hurt his reputation even more to be going back on his word/judgments just to cover his ass. It sends a very conflicting message. On the one hand, the 16 game suspension was supposed to send the message that bounties are serious and an unprecented hammer got thrown down. On the other hand, reducing that ban to cover for a mistake by the commissioner and league office sends the message that a very serious and important punishment for bounties can be trivialized (yes, 8 games compared to a full season is trivial) if it means protecting the comissioner's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I immediately felt awkward when I heard about this deal. Shady. Real shady. In Vilma's position however, the NFL side of me says he should take the reduction. However, the legal side says he should keep pushing. If he's suing for defamation, taking the reduction is essentially admitting guilt. To me that says "Whew, I got off, better take what I can get." Whereas, if he's innocent, he should accept nothing less than the full 16 games, or he should go for Goodell's job. If this case goes Vilma's way and shows that Goodell really had a lack of evidence to perform these suspensions...he should lose his job. That sounds like an overreaction, but given that he has been given enough power to become the NFL fuhrer, he should have a zero tolerance policy on his job. If he gets something wrong, there is no real appeal system. So it can not be tolerated. It's a tough call for Vilma, I'd think. If it was my money I'd probably be forced to take the deal, unless I had some side job lined up, but if he does pursue the lawsuit, it could cost him a few million in lost pay (not sure his actual paycheck, but imagine it would be substantial). I agree with you, though. Admitting guilt might be something Vilma wants to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It's a tough call for Vilma, I'd think. If it was my money I'd probably be forced to take the deal, unless I had some side job lined up, but if he does pursue the lawsuit, it could cost him a few million in lost pay (not sure his actual paycheck, but imagine it would be substantial).I agree with you, though. Admitting guilt might be something Vilma wants to avoid. if he gets an injunction, he would be able to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Sooooooo... how about a little 'settlement' for the Redskins and next years cap money back. "Ok we totally admit direct involvement in frontloading contracts, whatever, we'll take the 50% penalty" If this move is to settle problems about lack of evidence shown, as Brees and Vilma have mentioned, then the Redskins situation is on par, or much more so than that. It's a similar situation: whatever to the evidence, the meat at potatoes; commish comes up with a penalty, because he can." Now it's 'okay we'll change it?...because we can?" what a ****ing mess. I mean in the Saints situation I can understand how it's not necessary to release all the details to the world because it should be considered private... but the Skins/Cowboys horse**** is plain as day-to the world. They're gonna come off Vilmas suspension a little bit? Come off our salary money *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It sends a very conflicting message. On the one hand, the 16 game suspension was supposed to send the message that bounties are serious and an unprecented hammer got thrown down. On the other hand, reducing that ban to cover for a mistake by the commissioner and league office sends the message that a very serious and important punishment for bounties can be trivialized (yes, 8 games compared to a full season is trivial) if it means protecting the comissioner's ass. I have to disagree because the lessening of the punishment isn't them saying that a bounty program isn't serious, it's an admission that they were incorrect in their accusations to begin with. The nfl has so little "evidence" that they are now grasping at straws to not look the fool after having made the claims they did. It does seem at least mildly unethical for goodell to basically dangle Vilma's livelyhood in front of him to make him drop a lawsuit that is against goodell himself and not the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 Jeff Darlington @JeffDarlington Judge on Vilma: "I’ll be candid with you: I’d like to rule in Mr. Vilma’s favor. I don’t think the (NFL's) ruling was transparent or fair." Judge says "If I can do it legally (rule for Vilma), I will." But she adds she isn't sure she can do it with Aug. 30 Burbank hearing coming. Judge on Vilma case: "I think the penalty was too harsh. My concern is, there’s still an appeal pending, which will be heard Aug. 30." Judge is saying plenty that favors Vilma -- but almost all of it is followed by a "but." NFL hasn't argued its points yet. Far from over. Vilma's side just made a point that caused judge to say, "I understand it better than I did before." That helps Vilma. Now, the NFL's turn. Excuse me. NFLPA's Kessler is now providing points before NFL's turn. And Kessler is pushing judge to make ruling: "You're fully empowered." Kessler coming out strong. Lots of hand gesturing. Very vocal. Pacing. He sees an opening -- and he's trying to hit it extremely hard here. ---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 07:44 AM ---------- Jeff Darlington @JeffDarlington The question is no longer whether judge believes Vilma deserves injunction (she does). The question is whether she has the power to do so. ---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 08:14 AM ---------- Gabe Feldman @SportsLawGuy Kessler finishing up. "I think I've exhausted myself." Judge- "very impressive." Gregg Levy now up for NFL. Levy- arguing that commish had jurisdiction to hear case and judge must give deference to RG and Burbank. Part of dispute Judge must decide is appropriate standard of review.Can Judge decide jurisdiction issue de novo or is great deference req'd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.