Jon Gruden suing the NFL, Roger Goodell

[mannc]

14 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Didn’t he resign?

As the lawsuit states, and as we knew all along, Gruden was forced to resign. Not the same thing at all.

[Spiderweb]

On 11/12/2021 at 3:56 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Good for Chucky

Goodell has done nothing good for the NFL. He can’t leave the commissioner’s office soon enough for me!

Popular opinion for sure, but any replacement will still be subject to the wants and desires of the billionaire owners. Thus, it would bring little, if any change.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Spiderweb

[ExiledInIllinois]

The NFL SpinMedia is out in force:

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/11/13/grudens-lawsuit-mistakenly-alleges-that-his-firing-was-intended-to-distract-from-wft-investigation/

35 minutes ago, Spiderweb said:

Popular opinion for sure, but any replacement will still be subject to the wants and desires of the billionaire owners. Thus, it would bring little, if any change.

Why we need more community owned teams! Change...

[That's No Moon]

19 hours ago, thronethinker said:

So he was fired because he said things some people don't like. The issue is did he ever fire or not hire someone based on their race, gender, gender identity, daily identity, or extenuating identity of sexual orientation/preference. If not he has his rights to his speech in a lawsuit. 

Nope. Not how that works at all but thanks for playing.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

This hits on what I was wondering about from the beginning of all this...around a week or 2 before Gruden got fired from the Raiders...

 

Namely, why?  Why this?  Why now?  Why Gruden?  Why not anyone else?

 

The whole thing absolutely wreaks of some type of personal vengeance plot against Gruden.

 

The fact of the matter is Gruden is a cocky, egotistical maniac and I think he made a lot of enemies around the league for a long time when he was a coach in the old days.

 

He spent most of his time on the MNF broadcasts kissing ass around the league and trying to get back on good terms so he could re-enter the coaching ranks.

 

I assume he has a lot of enemies.

 

 

hmmm…..who would want to Gruden out of his contract most….?

[snafu]

8 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You know, that was exactly my thought.  I don't think the Soviets ever troubled to assassinate character.

 

I don't think it's the "naughty words" that did it for Gruden.

 

It was what he said about Goodell.

 

Show me a business, anywhere, anytime, where it was acceptable to "piss in the Boss's Wheaties" like that.

 

I'll hang up and wait. 

 

No, I lie; I won't wait, because you can't.

 

It's never been acceptable, any time, any where, and it's a "fairy story" that it has anything to do with "society we've become".  If anything, we're now more tolerant of disrespect towards authority.

 

 

I agree with your point but Goodell wasn’t Gruden’s boss. And it didn’t seem like Mark Davis was in the loop.

Goodell couldn’t hire or fire Gruden and the way that Goodell manufactured Gruden’s resignation leaves the league in a tough spot.  It’s up to Goodell to manage appearances for the NFL’s owners, and he left them with a PR mess.

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

25 minutes ago, snafu said:

I agree with your point but Goodell wasn’t Gruden’s boss.

 

Not at the time. 

 

I suppose technically, not at any time, but still the Big Boss of the NFL operation.

 

My point is just that this isn't some modern phenomenon: insult Les Grands Fromages of your industry has always been a big AwShit!

The modern twist is just that emails (and social media) are forever vs. speech you can deny or a paper letter you can (theoretically) burn

 

6 hours ago, mannc said:

Gruden did not work for Goddell or the NFL. He was employed by the Raiders.  So he didn’t “piss in the boss’s Wheaties…”

 

That's really a nit.  He wasn't employed in the NFL at the time, but he was at the time it came out, and Goodell is the Big Boss over the whole operation.

[snafu]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not at the time. 

 

I suppose technically, not at any time, but still the Big Boss of the NFL operation.

 

My point is just that this isn't some modern phenomenon: insult Les Grands Fromages of your industry has always been a big AwShit!

The modern twist is just that emails (and social media) are forever vs. speech you can deny or a paper letter you can (theoretically) burn

 

 

That's really a nit.  He wasn't employed in the NFL at the time, but he was at the time it came out, and Goodell is the Big Boss over the whole operation.

Yes right, don’t piss off your boss.  I doubt Goodell went to his boss — Mark Davis — and said “I’m going to sandbag your head coach because I don’t like him and I have zero authority to fire him.  Oh and I’m going to do it publicly and in a way that pisses off and frightens some of my other 31 bosses”. Could tun into an awShit moment for the Commissioner some day.

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

2 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

Nope. Not how that works at all but thanks for playing.

Actually that is exactly how the law works. Why do you think otherwise? You have to show his views improperly impacted someone's career. 

[Arkady Renko]

Does anyone wonder if the selective leak of Gruden's emails was really an effort to target Peterman?  Gruden goes.  Peterman is cut.  I'm sure someone with an axe to grind against Peterman could have anticipated that.  

[Einstein]

On 11/12/2021 at 5:16 PM, ColoradoBills said:

The NFL legal team no doubt looked at the possibilities of what Gruden may or may not do after the emails would be released.

This filing I'm sure is no surprise to them.

 

The looked at the possibilities of what would happen if they let the Rams leave St. louis.

 

Yet they’re still getting their hiney kicked in court.

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Actually that is exactly how the law works. Why do you think otherwise? You have to show his views improperly impacted someone's career. 

 

If you send  emails in your workplace that essentially say  :  " I hate blacks,  women, and gay people ,"   how well will would that go over?     It doesn't have to impact someone's career lol.  You would be in hot water  at practically any major company.  Why would the NFL be any different?

[White Linen]

11 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

No it is not inappropriate only to the new woke culture. 

Paul Rudd, sexiest man of the year

Whitey Ford

Moose Skowron

Jerry Mathers as "the Beaver" Cleaver.

Popeye Jones

Bucky Dent

 

Look, I am not oblivious to names used in 2021, and I could gave said

Mr. Gruden and been quite respectful of a guy who clearly is undeserving of the respect. He has always been over the top, exaggerates and ridicules frequently. 

My apology if I offended you, and your principles. 

 

 

You're misunderstanding my question.  I'm not offended,  was leading toward a path that sounds like we both agree with.

[Orlando Tim]

9 hours ago, prissythecat said:

 

If you send  emails in your workplace that essentially say  :  " I hate blacks,  women, and gay people ,"   how well will would that go over?     It doesn't have to impact someone's career lol.  You would be in hot water  at practically any major company.  Why would the NFL be any different?

Several levels of this: one he did not ever insinuate he hated blacks, gays, or women. He stated using inappropriate terms he hated  Demaurice Smith and did not like the drafting of Michael Sam. Second: he had the the first openly gay player in NFL and supported him. Third: he was not in hot water until they got leaked from 8 years ago. The NFL was fine with comments and language until recently. 

 

As for me personally I would not use derogatory terms for people in writing or verbally for many reason.

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Several levels of this: one he did not ever insinuate he hated blacks, gays, or women. He stated using inappropriate terms he hated  Demaurice Smith and did not like the drafting of Michael Sam. Second: he had the the first openly gay player in NFL and supported him. Third: he was not in hot water until they got leaked from 8 years ago. The NFL was fine with comments and language until recently. 

 

As for me personally I would not use derogatory terms for people in writing or verbally for many reason.

 

Fair enough.  I will agree with derogatory or wildly inappropriate.      But regardless,  even 8 years ago before "wokeness"  ,  the emails had no place in any professional organization.      Now whether or not the NFL purposely leaked these,  I don't know.  But it does seem unlikely that Goodell would sign off on potentially exposing embarrassing stuff to the whole world by targeting someone who could retaliate with a lawsuit.  It may  be there is someone who fancies himself a whistleblower and wants authorities to  look at what  the NFL did not want to discuss or publish in any formal report.

[Rico]

22 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

Fair enough.  I will agree with derogatory or wildly inappropriate.      But regardless,  even 8 years ago before "wokeness"  ,  the emails had no place in any professional organization.      Now whether or not the NFL purposely leaked these,  I don't know.  But it does seem unlikely that Goodell would sign off on potentially exposing embarrassing stuff to the whole world by targeting someone who could retaliate with a lawsuit.  It may  be there is someone who fancies himself a whistleblower and wants authorities to  look at what  the NFL did not want to discuss or publish in any formal report.

I agree, highly unlikely Goodell had anything to do with it. I don’t know if had anything to do with deflecting attention from Snyder / Skins either. I think it was some clown in the league office like a Troy Vincent who saw those e-mails and got so bent out of shape that he went running to the NYT & WaPo who were only to happy to do another hit job.

[mannc]

14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

 

That's really a nit.  He wasn't employed in the NFL at the time, but he was at the time it came out, and Goodell is the Big Boss over the whole operation. 
 

 

 

 

Gruden was never employed by the league. And it’s not a nit; Gruden’s primary claim in the lawsuit (tortious interference) actually depends on him NOT being employed by the league. His theory is that the NFL wrongfully interfered with his employment relationship with the Raiders.

[Beerball]

On 11/12/2021 at 3:56 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Good for Chucky

Goodell has done nothing good for the NFL. He can’t leave the commissioner’s office soon enough for me!

So, you dislike Roger, we get that.

 

Why good for Chucky? Are you of the opinion that his comments were no big deal and just guys being guys?

[That's No Moon]

20 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Actually that is exactly how the law works. Why do you think otherwise? You have to show his views improperly impacted someone's career. 

No. You don't. Just like the person who flipped off the Presidential motorcade and lost their job. People love to throw around the First Amendment and apply it to situations it does not apply to. If Gruden were to win this it would because of the manner in which the emails were disclosed. 

 

 

FWIW it's not a small difference that he chose to resign rather than be fired. It's sematic but semantics matter.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Anything to stick it to the league im good.

 

 

On 11/12/2021 at 4:06 PM, BringBackFergy said:

Cue the TBD forensic investigators, armchair civil litigators and general know-it-alls. 

 

Im not allowed anymore 😉😉

 

 

[davefan66]

On 11/12/2021 at 4:57 PM, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Gruden and Mark Davis celebrate:

Because it was an anti-trust lawsuit, damages were trebled to $3.00.

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, That's No Moon said:

No. You don't. Just like the person who flipped off the Presidential motorcade and lost their job. People love to throw around the First Amendment and apply it to situations it does not apply to. If Gruden were to win this it would because of the manner in which the emails were disclosed. 

 

 

FWIW it's not a small difference that he chose to resign rather than be fired. It's sematic but semantics matter.

In order to cancel the contract they would have show that he did more than say some insensitive things. They would have to prove his actions negatively impacted people. Now the fact he resigned is a valid point and will make it interesting for him to prove that he was forced to resign. 

[That's No Moon]

39 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

In order to cancel the contract they would have show that he did more than say some insensitive things. They would have to prove his actions negatively impacted people. Now the fact he resigned is a valid point and will make it interesting for him to prove that he was forced to resign. 

There is no such thing as a forced resignation. You are given the choice, resign or be fired. You can choose to make them fire you. The Raiders did not fire Gruden for cause, they didn't void his contract. It's highly probable that he's being paid his full salary as a part of his agreement to resign. Being fired for cause is totally different and he wasn't.

 

To your other point you still do not have to prove that his actions caused harm to others. He's not a protected class, nothing he lost his job over was protected speech. You don't have the freedom to say whatever you want over emails or over the greater internet or even out loud with impunity. Grudens emails, at least in part, were disparaging to the commissioner of the organization for whom he worked. The Raiders are under no obligation to tolerate that. Just as any of us would expect to lose our jobs if we referred to the CEO of our company that way over company email. Freedom from prosecution from the government is different from freedom from losing your job at a private business.

 

If you really want to go down that road, which again would only be relevant if he were fired for cause which he was not, the Raiders could argue that his actions were harmful to the brand and would significantly impact their future ability to attract players and staff as well as negatively impact sales. It's not really that challenging. One sponsorship is pulled, case is made. Had Gruden stayed on at least one sponsorship would have been pulled. That's lost revenue and is by definition damaging.

 

To my understanding, that's not even Grudens argument. His argument seems to be that he was singled out from a much larger group of people for discipline for similar actions, not that his own actions were justifiable or defensible, but that others should also have been punished but were not. The NFL made that case possible when they declined to release all the emails and nobody else lost their jobs.

[daz28]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:42 PM, That's No Moon said:

There is no such thing as a forced resignation. You are given the choice, resign or be fired. You can choose to make them fire you. The Raiders did not fire Gruden for cause, they didn't void his contract. It's highly probable that he's being paid his full salary as a part of his agreement to resign. Being fired for cause is totally different and he wasn't.

 

To your other point you still do not have to prove that his actions caused harm to others. He's not a protected class, nothing he lost his job over was protected speech. You don't have the freedom to say whatever you want over emails or over the greater internet or even out loud with impunity. Grudens emails, at least in part, were disparaging to the commissioner of the organization for whom he worked. The Raiders are under no obligation to tolerate that. Just as any of us would expect to lose our jobs if we referred to the CEO of our company that way over company email. Freedom from prosecution from the government is different from freedom from losing your job at a private business.

 

If you really want to go down that road, which again would only be relevant if he were fired for cause which he was not, the Raiders could argue that his actions were harmful to the brand and would significantly impact their future ability to attract players and staff as well as negatively impact sales. It's not really that challenging. One sponsorship is pulled, case is made. Had Gruden stayed on at least one sponsorship would have been pulled. That's lost revenue and is by definition damaging.

 

To my understanding, that's not even Grudens argument. His argument seems to be that he was singled out from a much larger group of people for discipline for similar actions, not that his own actions were justifiable or defensible, but that others should also have been punished but were not. The NFL made that case possible when they declined to release all the emails and nobody else lost their jobs.

This is EXACTLY my stance here.  He was talked into this law suit by lawyers after the fact, who I'm sure told him his case would have been MUCH stronger had he forced the Raiders to fire him.  When he resigned, it showed that he evaluated the situation, and chose the best course, based on HIS own actions.  

 

[QCity]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:42 PM, That's No Moon said:

It's highly probable that he's being paid his full salary as a part of his agreement to resign.

 

I'm going to disagree with this part and say there's no way he's still being paid his full salary. He had a ridiculous $100M contract. I would venture a guess and say the contract settlement isn't going the way he wants, and his lawyers have convinced him it's more profitable to file suit (and they're probably right).

[Lane Meyer K12]

Good for him! I hope Gruden wins decisively. The way the NFL conducts itself turns good fans away. 

[Amorgus]

Let the chaos flow and expose EVERYONE.  Let's see how many more scumbags can get taken out by the WFT investigation.