NYT: Goodell Will Fine Jerry Jones Millions of Dollars - It's a Reimbursement for Legal Fees

[MJS]

Heaven forbid someone disagree that Goodell should be automatically given a new contract.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

15 minutes ago, BuffAlone said:

All true Old Timer! And to think I used to want to be one lmao. Nope, I'll take my moral constipation with me when I go. ?

I wonder how many homeless Americans we could shelter and feed in Dallas for a paltry $2,000,000,000 tonight? Joke. Scam. Horrible truth

 

 

 

...Grandma always said, "money is the root of all evil sonny"....she was NEVER wrong...........

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[BuffAlone]

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

 

...Grandma always said, "money is the root of all evil sonny"....she was NEVER wrong...........

I got hens for eggs, rabbits for meat, a goat for milk(and lawn mowing) and all in village limits.  Its about to hit the fan. This country...this WORLD( flat OR round)  is getting rough.  Just gimme Rosen and Vea somwhow, and we can start to rebuild! Lol

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, BuffAlone said:

I got hens for eggs, rabbits for meat, a goat for milk(and lawn mowing) and all in village limits.  Its about to hit the fan. This country...this WORLD( flat OR round)  is getting rough.  Just gimme Rosen and Vea somwhow, and we can start to rebuild! Lol

 

...BUT...watchin' the "goat Jurry" get milked would be exponentially satisfying...........

[aristocrat]

This is gonna be interesting 

[BillsFan4]

Haha I love it!    Mainly because I can't stand Jerry Jones. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I’m not defending Goodell here, but I’m sure you understand that Jones threats did in fact cost the league and it’s owners money. Jones hired a lawyer and was ready to sue, which in turn then caused the league to hire lawyers and prepare to defend itself. I’m sure that pissed a lot of the other owners off. And it’s not a fine, it’s rembursement. Almost like a being an !@#$ fee.

 

 

He had some disagreements with the league and other owners. He didn't follow the crowd. So he went through his attorneys or threatened to go through his attorneys to fight for his position. When you are in a high stakes business sometimes it gets a little rough and tough. Did it cost the league some money to fight back? Probably so. So what? That's how things are handled in that environment. 

 

Let's look at the positions Jerry took. First, taking the position that the payment deal for the commissioner was too rich was a defensible  position to take. Whether you agree with it or not it was a reasonable position. And his position that the punishment for Elliot was too steep when there were valid concerns that the woman making the assault claims lacked credibility. Didn't Kraft challenge the league and the commissioner in the Brady and deflategate case? And weren't there legal costs involved in that slugfest?  Kraft eventually backed off but initially he fought for his player and position. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

If Jones gets fined it is wrong. What would he be fined for? For having a different opinion from the rest of the herd and pushing for his case? His claims could be legitimate or well off target. It doesn't matter. He is entitled to his view and is entitled to pursue it. Jones is an egotistical and bombastic person. He threatened to sue because he was on the losing side of the argument. Ultimately, he didn't sue. So how did he harm the league or any other owners, and the insufferable commissioner. Jones position that Goodell was going to be overpaid was not an unreasonable position. Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL. He's not Putin who disposes of people who challenge his authority. On this issue I'm on the side of the tiresome talker from Dallas. 

 

 

He voted for the compensation committee to have the final say on what Goodell got paid.  Then he wanted to sue over that when the NFl suspended his personally dysfunctional RB.

 

As reported above, this has nothing to do with Goodell.  This is the owners getting their legal fees back and at the same time bending Jones over the sink.

 

It always amazes me that people can STILL not understand Goodall's roll in the NFL.  Unbelievable.

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

He voted for the compensation committee to have the final say on what Goodell got paid.  Then he wanted to sue over that when the NFl suspended his personally dysfunctional RB.

 

As reported above, this has nothing to do with Goodell.  This is the owners getting their legal fees back and at the same time bending Jones over the sink.

 

It always amazes me that people can STILL not understand Goodall's roll in the NFL.  Unbelievable.

The Dallas owner wanted to weigh in on the compensation decision. So he strongly made his feeling felt. He threatened to sue over the Elliott decision. His position on that ruling was far from being meritless. You act as if the league that is in a constant state of legal wrangling with a variety of parties is surprised that they have additional legal costs from internal squabbling. That's part of the environment in this high stakes business. 

 

The owners trying to punish him with charging him for legal costs with the commissioner's office going along has nothing to do with the actual costs. They are trying to stick it to him (as you noted). You may disagree with the position that Jones took on these two issues but they were very reasonable positions. The owners and the commissioner are the ones acting petulantly here. The commissioner's authority is derived through the owners. That's well established. But in this case the commissioner could have said stop it and deal with the conflict without continuing on with the legal fight. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

How soon before Jerrah files a counter suit? 

[cba fan]

WTH cost did NFL owners incur? Do they not have lawyers on retainer which is basically prepaid lawyer work when needed? Or do they not have full time lawyers working for them that are paid anyway?

Is this some kind of liberal accounting argument like when US goes to war and suddenly those opposed site all the Military expenses as part of the war effort without deducting the costs of those same members training/lodging/eating/medical etc etc for being in military anyway.

 

It is only a couple million. Jerry probably spent more on his face surgeries. He will be OK.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

8 hours ago, cba fan said:

WTH cost did NFL owners incur? Do they not have lawyers on retainer which is basically prepaid lawyer work when needed? Or do they not have full time lawyers working for them that are paid anyway?

Is this some kind of liberal accounting argument like when US goes to war and suddenly those opposed site all the Military expenses as part of the war effort without deducting the costs of those same members training/lodging/eating/medical etc etc for being in military anyway.

 

It is only a couple million. Jerry probably spent more on his face surgeries. He will be OK.

When you sue the NFL home office you are in effect taking away from the other 31 teams (obviously subtract Dallas) 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Dallas owner wanted to weigh in on the compensation decision. So he strongly made his feeling felt. He threatened to sue over the Elliott decision. His position on that ruling was far from being meritless. You act as if the league that is in a constant state of legal wrangling with a variety of parties is surprised that they have additional legal costs from internal squabbling. That's part of the environment in this high stakes business. 

 

The owners trying to punish him with charging him for legal costs with the commissioner's office going along has nothing to do with the actual costs. They are trying to stick it to him (as you noted). You may disagree with the position that Jones took on these two issues but they were very reasonable positions. The owners and the commissioner are the ones acting petulantly here. The commissioner's authority is derived through the owners. That's well established. But in this case the commissioner could have said stop it and deal with the conflict without continuing on with the legal fight. 

 

 

The bolded parts are not accurate.

 

All 32 owners (that would include Jones) voted to let the compensation committee (six owners) determine if Goodell gets an extension and if so, how much he gets paid. He "weighed in" when he voted for that structure.  He only had a problem with it after his RB was suspended.

 

He wasn't suing over the Elliot decision--he was suing to get rid of Goodell, or at least delay his contract.

 

The NFL doesn't have a "variety of parties" threatening to sue them who are fellow owners--it had one.

 

As far as the merit of Jones's position on Elliott's suspension, the arbitrator, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (twice), the US Southern District Court of New York and the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals all concluded Elliot's appeal of his suspension had no merit.

 

The claim that the Commissioner could have said "stop it" or even "no" is laughable.  He's an employee who does their bidding.  He can no more tell his bosses what to do than your pizza delivery boy can tell you what to order on your pie.

 

You don't seem to understand that this is why the owners told Goodell to fine Jones:

 

"I'm gonna come after you (Goodell) with everything I have," Jones said. Then he mentioned Deflategate. "If you think Bob Kraft came after you hard, Bob Kraft is a p*ssy compared to what I'm going to do.

 

 

 

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The bolded parts are not accurate.

 

All 32 owners (that would include Jones) voted to let the compensation committee (six owners) determine if Goodell gets an extension and if so, how much he gets paid. He "weighed in" when he voted for that structure.  He only had a problem with it after his RB was suspended.

 

He wasn't suing over the Elliot decision--he was suing to get rid of Goodell, or at least delay his contract.

 

The NFL doesn't have a "variety of parties" threatening to sue them who are fellow owners--it had one.

 

As far as the merit of Jones's position on Elliott's suspension, the arbitrator, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (twice), the US Southern District Court of New York and the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals all concluded Elliot's appeal of his suspension had no merit.

 

The claim that the Commissioner could have said "stop it" or even "no" is laughable.  He's an employee who does their bidding.  He can no more tell his bosses what to do than your pizza delivery boy can tell you what to order on your pie.

 

You don't seem to understand that this is why the owners told Goodell to fine Jones:

 

"I'm gonna come after you (Goodell) with everything I have," Jones said. Then he mentioned Deflategate. "If you think Bob Kraft came after you hard, Bob Kraft is a p*ssy compared to what I'm going to do.

 

 

 

The owner of the Cowboys is an aggressive and blustery character. He strongly reacted to a disciplinary ruling. He made it known that he was coming after the commissioner. Big freaking deal! The ownership group is made up of 32 rich and self-important elitists. Many of them are self-made men and some had their wealth passed on from their daddies. The Cowboy owner was spewing venom for some decisions that impacted him. So let him stew! Are they so delicate that they can't handle criticism from one of the senior members from their group?

 

The segment that you highlighted is of no relevance. What you pointed out is that Jerry was outraged at a decision that hurt his team (it did) and felt was unfair. So he got upset and lashed out with some street talk. Big freaking deal! What's the matter? These boardroom girls had handle some abusive street talk? 

 

You act as if Jerry was required to be one of the sheep and stay with the herd. He vented and the kitties on the board felt they were disrespected. The owners acted like spoiled brats who when cussed out by the bully ran home to their mommas and hid underneath their skirts. Jerry talked trash and the babies couldn't handle it. Don't waste my time with the so called violation of the corporate covenant. What's next? The insufferable commissioner can't be criticized because he has been anointed the saint in the conference room? 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The owner of the Cowboys is an aggressive and blustery character. He strongly reacted to a disciplinary ruling. He made it known that he was coming after the commissioner. Big freaking deal! The ownership group is made up of 32 rich and self-important elitists. Many of them are self-made men and some had their wealth passed on from their daddies. The Cowboy owner was spewing venom for some decisions that impacted him. So let him stew! Are they so delicate that they can't handle criticism from one of the senior members from their group?

 

The segment that you highlighted is of no relevance. What you pointed out is that Jerry was outraged at a decision that hurt his team (it did) and felt was unfair. So he got upset and lashed out with some street talk. Big freaking deal! What's the matter? These boardroom girls had handle some abusive street talk? 

 

You act as if Jerry was required to be one of the sheep and stay with the herd. He vented and the kitties on the board felt they were disrespected. The owners acted like spoiled brats who when cussed out by the bully ran home to their mommas and hid underneath their skirts. Jerry talked trash and the babies couldn't handle it. Don't waste my time with the so called violation of the corporate covenant. What's next? The insufferable commissioner can't be criticized because he has been anointed the saint in the conference room? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He didn't "criticize" the other owners. He threatened to sue them.

 

Nothing you acknowledges this.  Nor do you make any sense.  A small group of powerful men who's wealth from the NFL is tied to each other is not going to tolerate one of them threatening legal action (especially one who has sued the league before). 

 

His player got suspended.  The appeal lost on every level. That one owner acted like a spoiled brat (no other owner has sued the league over a suspended player) and the rest of them are saying they aren't going to tolerate that.

 

That's how it actually happened.  Your take is at odds with all the facts,

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

He didn't "criticize" the other owners. He threatened to sue them.

 

Nothing you acknowledges this.  Nor do you make any sense.  A small group of powerful men who's wealth from the NFL is tied to each other is not going to tolerate one of them threatening legal action (especially one who has sued the league before). 

 

His player got suspended.  The appeal lost on every level. That one owner acted like a spoiled brat (no other owner has sued the league over a suspended player) and the rest of them are saying they aren't going to tolerate that.

 

That's how it actually happened.  Your take is at odds with all the facts,

Your take is off the wall and not moored to how the real world works. You make a big deal that he threatened the owners. Are you freaking kidding me? Billionaire owners being threatened by a blow hard owner has them back stepping and going to their corners so they can seek a safe space where they can cower. We have an volatile president who every morning before eating his cereal threatens to sue his critics. What are we supposed to do? Run to the courts landcomplain that the "mean girls" were mean to them in  the cafeteria.  

 

You have a group of very wealthy men who are accustomed to being kings in their empire. One of the gilded members in the club gets upset and makes a threat. Did he go through with his threat? No, he did not. The brats in the conference room need to toughen up. Instead of responding in a legal or officious manner they should of individually stood up and look Jerry in the eyes and tell him to go to hell and STFU.

 

Come on WEO you can do better. Your take is very weak----just like how the owners responded. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your take is off the wall and not moored to how the real world works. You make a big deal that he threatened the owners. Are you freaking kidding me? Billionaire owners being threatened by a blow hard owner has them back stepping and going to their corners so they can seek a safe space where they can cower. We have an volatile president who every morning before eating his cereal threatens to sue his critics. What are we supposed to do? Run to the courts landcomplain that the "mean girls" were mean to them in  the cafeteria.  

 

You have a group of very wealthy men who are accustomed to being kings in their empire. One of the gilded members in the club gets upset and makes a threat. Did he go through with his threat? No, he did not. The brats in the conference room need to toughen up. Instead of responding in a legal or officious manner they should of individually stood up and look Jerry in the eyes and tell him to go to hell and STFU.

 

Come on WEO you can do better. Your take is very weak----just like how the owners responded. 

 

 

 

 

They essentially did this.  They floated the idea of taking his franchise from him.

 

Look this isn't my "take"...it's how things actually went.  You may feel better imagining these guys cowering in a corner or whatever it is you fancy, but they acted in a  way rich men do when another in their very small group threatens to upset their collective revenue stream in any way.  You are attaching all sorts of looney drama to the rest of the owners when it is Jones alone who clearly acted childish.  The owners, by publically directing their Commissioner to "fine" Jones, are letting the world know they don't tolerate his nonsense.

 

 

Jones is the one who, unbelievably foolishly, blew any remaining capital he had in that room (which was a lot at one point) by digging in on a player suspension.  Who could not see his faceplant and public humiliation coming a mile away??  He did this to himself.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

They essentially did this.  They floated the idea of taking his franchise from him.

 

Look this isn't my "take"...it's how things actually went.  You may feel better imagining these guys cowering in a corner or whatever it is you fancy, but they acted in a  way rich men do when another in their very small group threatens to upset their collective revenue stream in any way.  You are attaching all sorts of looney drama to the rest of the owners when it is Jones alone who clearly acted childish.  The owners, by publically directing their Commissioner to "fine" Jones, are letting the world know they don't tolerate his nonsense.

 

 

Jones is the one who, unbelievably foolishly, blew any remaining capital he had in that room (which was a lot at one point) by digging in on a player suspension.  Who could not see his faceplant and public humiliation coming a mile away??  He did this to himself.

With respect to the highlighted segment that is lunatic talk from a bunch of arrogant and pompous rich people who are not used to being challenged.

 

In your typical fashion you are not paying attention to what I have been saying. Of course I know how and why the rich brats responded. That's evident. That is what I am criticizing them and the commissioner for. This resorting to a legal response to a threat made by one of their obstreperous associates was a foolish act in and of itself. What they did was prolong the internal feud and possibly make it become a fueling factor in a later conflict. 

 

What is the need for publicly embarrassing the annoying Texas owner when every day he does it to himself in some way. The point that you can't grasp is just because you have an authority to do something doesn't make what you do the smart thing to do. This is a case where in the privacy of the boardroom the owners should have individually and collectively told the twanging owner to go F....ck himself. The forceful message would have resonated with the Texas oil field brawler. 

 

Let's get back to a couple of the original issues. Without a doubt there was merit to Jerry's positions. His claim that the commissioner's remuneration was too high is a legitimate issue. Whether you agree or not his position is very reasonable. And his position on the severity of Elliot's punishment was not unreasonable especially when there were conflicting stories as to what actually happened. I'm not saying that you have to agree with his position but I am saying they certainly weren't  outlandish positions for him to take.