![]() |
|
NFL: Saints Bounty Thread - Printable Version +- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com) +-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards) +--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More) +--- Thread: NFL: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread) Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 |
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 06-04-2012 05:33 PM (06-04-2012 04:41 PM)Beef Wrote: I completely understand what you're saying and agree. But don't defamation, libel, and slander sorta come with the advantage of either-or with regards to the subjectivness of their basis or context? That goes more to damages than to liability. The question I was assessing was whether Goodell can be personally liable for any harm to Vilma. I'd bet Vilma waived any right to bring direct action against Goodell (or anyone else) when the Players' Association signed the CBA. So if Goodell was acting according to the CBA, even if he does have damages, he can't sue Goodell for them. Collective bargaining agreements usually specify arbitration as the sole means to resolve disputes under the CBA. Ask me why I think the NFL's CBA was no exception to this...... RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Polar Bear Jones - 06-04-2012 06:58 PM I guess this belongs in this thread. Quote:NFLCA criticizes NFLPA's handling of bounty investigation. Now I understand that the coaches are closer to the league than the players but given the fact that GW and Payton are suspended as well they are as close to impartial as its going to get in this situation. The "A Few Goodmen"/ "code red" defense is not going to fly. Take your punishment and get over it. RE: Saints Bounty Thread - TeamPlayer1 - 06-04-2012 11:16 PM Sorry Guido. We understand, the evidence is just too much. We'll see you later in the season. RE: Saints Bounty Thread - hitwriter - 06-04-2012 11:29 PM I am honestly amazed at the tolerance the mods here have had and allowed with Guido. There isn't a Saints forum I have ever seen that would allow an opposing fan (especially a Falcons fan) to go back and forth on a subject like this for more than 2 pages better yet 55! (Yet two pages and 12+ hours since the new news and no Guido!) This has been an interesting and comical read as the story unfolds and I respect the mods for at least allowing Guido to simply hang himself here rather than act like the insecure *&^%$ on any Saints forum and just ban the guy. The Falcons fans here have done a great job at dismantling his arguments and commenting on the legal issues. RE: Saints Bounty Thread - papachaz - 06-05-2012 01:37 AM (06-04-2012 11:29 PM)hitwriter Wrote: I am honestly amazed at the tolerance the mods here have had and allowed with Guido. There isn't a Saints forum I have ever seen that would allow an opposing fan (especially a Falcons fan) to go back and forth on a subject like this for more than 2 pages better yet 55! (Yet two pages and 12+ hours since the new news and no Guido!) LMAO.....and as Forrest Gump would say, "that's all i'm gonna say about that" RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Drathdon - 06-05-2012 04:04 AM (06-04-2012 06:58 PM)Polar Bear Jones Wrote: Cornwell writes that the NFLPA’s “no evidence” defense “has been exposed as nothing more than a directive from (DeMaurice) Smith that players not meet with the Commissioner and not look at records uncovered in the NFL’s investigation so that Smith’s strategy of blaming their coaches would have the illusion of merit.” RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 06-05-2012 12:02 PM It's peculiar that the Saints are trying out Luke Mccown today. Of course he won't be the starter but getting veteran backups just in case....maybe. I'm dreaming but you never know. I'm just giving incentive for Guido to respond. He usually doesn't until he finds something that he can laugh at or refute. I would give one of those infamous Guido *rolleyes* smiley faces right now but I'm using my phone. RE: Saints Bounty Thread - phocis850 - 06-05-2012 02:53 PM
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - TeamPlayer1 - 06-05-2012 05:18 PM (06-05-2012 02:53 PM)phocis850 Wrote: Phocis, How can that not be a beer worthy thing? If the Saints can think they can encourage Brees to sign by bringing in a back up QB this FO is clueless. RE: Saints Bounty Thread - pauliwood - 06-05-2012 05:34 PM (06-05-2012 05:18 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote: Phocis, How can that not be a beer worthy thing? If the Saints can think they can encourage Brees to sign by bringing in a back up QB this FO is clueless. It seems to me they could have used some of the money given to Luke for Brees. |