NFL Arbitrator finds Goodell encouraged collusion between teams to reduce Veteran Guarantees

[RobbRiddick]

41 minutes ago, Einstein said:

The more interesting story, in my opinion, was the Lamar Jackson stuff revealed in the story.

Lamar wanted a fully guaranteed long contract. The Ravens would do 2 or 3 years at most. Lamar balked. He hit restricted FA and no-one wanted him. 

Ravens made one last offer to him before the draft and he immediately accepted it. 

I remember some folks on this forum talking about how Lamar "won" at the time. Turns out that Lamar practically jumped at the opportunity to take whatever the Ravens would give him after no-one else offered him a cent.

Jets fans are still crying about not giving up a bucket of draft picks for him. 

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

In the good ‘ol days the league had this same collusion meeting every year. It’s just that back then it was more accurately labeled as the “Can somebody please tell Al Davis to knock it off?” Meeting. 😉

 

Now they are all of the same mind---don't rock the boat, maximize revenue.

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

hard salary cap is a strict limit on salaries by design. owners would hardly need to be convinced not to offer completely guaranteed contracts of that scale (there has only been ...ever).  Josh Allen's guaranteed money dwarfs Watsons.  

 

 

 

he didn't come up up with the idea to collude......he's just serving his masters.

 

Allen got his guaranteed money after the salary cap went up by a huge amount compared to when Watson got his. 

 

The salary cap is 279 million versus 208 in 2022.

 

Effectively Watson got 1.1 times the amount of the Salary Cap at the time in guaranteed money while Allen got 0.89 times the salary cap.

 

So while yes, Allen got $20 million more than Watson in guaranteed money, it is based on a much larger pool of money available

Edited 9 hours ago by Big Turk

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Wow....that could be a bombshell and open the NFL up to serious litigation and monetary damages...

 

However an even stranger narrative is that both the NFL and NFLPA fought to keep the information secret.

 

Why would the NFLPA not want this to get out?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl/breaking-news/article/nfl-collusion-ruling-arbitrator-reportedly-finds-nfl-roger-goodell-encouraged-teams-to-reduce-guarantees-for-veterans-144903905.html

 

the arbitrator, Christopher Droney, wrote the following:

 

"There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans’ contracts at the March 2022 annual owners’ meeting."

 

That suggests both the NFL and Goodell wanted teams to collude to reduce guaranteed money when handing out contracts to veteran players.

 

 

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard.

 

Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation.

 

I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

 

[Big Turk]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard.

 

Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation.

 

I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

 

 

They don't need to be in the witness statements. There are a lot of people who have no idea what those words even mean.  But just for the purpose of this discussion, I will post the definition of Collusion:

 

col·lu·sion

/kəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n/

noun: collusion

• secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

"the NFL Owners were working in collusion with one another to prevent higher contracts among players"

 

So whether the witnesses knew when they told the reporters that NFL owners working together to prevent players from having higher contracts, especially QBs, after the Watson deal is collusion, that's the literal definition of the word.  

 

If someone says they witnessed someone in a courtroom speak under oath, then told them what they said on the stand was a lie, it doesn't make it not be perjury just because the person didn't use that word when they told the reporter what happened or didn't know what the word meant.

 

The actions define what happened and whether it was collusion, NOT the words being told to reporters by witnesses.

Edited 3 hours ago by Big Turk