So, does cutting his punishment in half mean the  others will be cut in half if they also file a lawsuit against Roger Goodell? I think this is gonna be quite interesting in the coming days.

---

My guess is that if there was such an offer, it was withdrawn as soon as it was leaked to the press.

The chances of this getting resolved any time soon just got smaller.

---

Wade- I will disagree that the offer was pulled.. if anything I think the plea bargaining on this has just begun... and for us that will only help us if Hargrove is on the team. (Which I believe he will based on the intensity/attitude he has added to the team)

The NFL has held back the evidence in this case, or a good portion of it, now the question is why.

IMO, it is either one of two basic premises of why.

1) The NFL jumped the gun so to speak on this and made assumptions without total proof.

2) The informant in this case, the one that really tied the case together, did so on a basis of anonymity. Complete.


I doubt the first option, but it could stand to reason that they are starting to waiver, because they had several "independent" sources  review the case evidence and publicly state an opinion.


So I would have to believe that the source/informant has basically stated that they will not testify in court or in any real setting to the facts they presented.

IMO, this is the and has been the NFL's issue in this case from day one.. they have the proof but they have it on a basis of strict confidence that the informant will not be revealed. If they do so, they will make it very difficult on themselves moving forward on gathering facts or statements from players or NFL personnel.

Hence why they are starting to plea now.. and have been very reluctant to show there complete hand.. even when the public opinion in part has the NFL overstepping the penalties in this case.

If I had to guess.. much like a strike/lockout, the closer the NFL season gets the faster the cogs of this situation will turn. I would guess all the suspensions will be reduced and the appeal process will be replayed in some fashion.

Either that.. of the NFL and the NFLPA is going to be back in conflict very shortly as I believe in the court of law this one man judgement and appeal process will be deemed faulty and will be forced to be restructured where there is an second part appeal.

The NFL doesn't want that.. and in my opinion will bend in this case to avoid that. I think that configuration is going to change in the future.. just when is the question.

With looming lawsuits of player safety and not taking care of the former players.. both the NFLPA, current players and NFL have much to lose.

IMO, the NFL as a whole very shortly is going to have to restructure the revenue stream greatly to cover the medical costs of former NFL players.. either voluntarily, via settlements or cost mandated.

As more and more players that file suit is only going to create more and more pressure to take care of the former players. If they would have solved that issue in the latest CBA and diverted more revenue to former players than they did.. instead they band aided it and it has driven this nonstop filing of lawsuits from past players looking for their cut of the current cash cow.

The NFL revenue landscape is rapidly changing.. hence a number of owners stating the the cap may not increase. That is sooner or later the NFL is going to have to address this festering issue.. I am betting on sooner.

---

I don't know, Shawn.

While I agree with you in general re: the pressures out there on the NFL, settlement rarely happens until people are willing to hammer things out in private without using the court of public opinion. Put a settlement offer out in public, especially when the public conversation has been increasingly toxic with parties consistently rigid in the "justice" of their position, is just like putting gasoline on a fire.

I won't be surprised if the litigation is "settled out of court" -- most litigation is, after all. But I think this kind of leak/public report will delay it.

The only way it wouldn't is if the parties are really close on the terms of settlement. (Which the public "denial" would suggest is not the case.)

First there's the posturing and the ultimatums and the refusal to give. Then there's a willingness to compromise with both giving something up. Then we get to the point of real settlement negotiation of the price. Finally, there's the vague announcement of "we might be getting close." Then there's settlement. Try to skip too much of steps 2-4, and you make step 5 harder.

If I was on the NFL owner side of things, and got this kind of leak on top of Brees, Vilma, et al's public announcements/interviews, etc....I'd take this as "WTF those guys doing? They can't be trusted." And I'd be telling my attorneys to dig in their heels until Vilma or someone else blinked.

When you are millionaires going after billionaires in court, you better be really careful about deciding how much you play nasty during settlement negotiations.

Billionaires don't get milquetoast lawyers. They get pit bulls on steroids lawyers.

IMO.

---

The NFL has released a statement saying this offer never happened.

---

Most certainly they will deny an actual "offer" was made.. it serves them no good in the public forum.


If I was wagering my ridiculously small salary on this.. all the player suspension will be reduced prior to the season beginning.. probably prior to the last preseason game.

The NFL is trying to send a message of control.. and they are starting to lose this battle.

Just as Wade has described.. it is the dance in process.. with more moving parts happening behind the public scene than being played out in it.

To clarify.. publicly it will be denied.. but ultimately is in play.

---

From court filed documents.. there was talks and probably a "offer" of some constitution was floated and leaked.

Source. 



IMO.. the NFL is slowly backing itself into another corner here.. much like the cap without a cap deal.

Yes the Saints lied to Goodell about ending the practices of Williams.. but it is not that uncommon of a practice to a certain degree.

Time for the NFL to cave a bit or disclose all of its evidence.. which I think they won't because it does more long term damage than short term gain.

Apparently Vilma has a better legal team at his disposal.

---

I would really love the NFL to eat shit and slash some of these suspensions, or at least provide some solid evidence. Because all of the "evidence" made public so far doesn't support their case at all.

---

Well, gee, what was he going to say, "we didn't enter into negotiations in good faith"? Briefs are arguments, not evidence, designed by lawyers to put their client's best face forward and to trash the other side.

This is more trying to negotiate in public. We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, yadda yadda yadda.

If the parties want to settle, get a room and stay in it until you're done. And that includes the lawyers.

And tell your PR departments to STFU until you're done and the paper's signed.

Otherwise you're just using up testosterone.

And buying lawyers more summer homes in the Hamptons or wherever.

Bah. Spoiled cream pies should be tossed at all of them until they STFU.

---

My point with that post Wade was to confirm that talks had taken place.. as another poster updated that the NFL is denying that any "offer" was made.

Wade.. I agree.. they are dancing and both leaking what assists them.. we are in agreement there.

---