Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anyone here actually know what 'At-Will' means?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by njx9
    or maybe it was a "goodell's decision to suspend vick is not a legal issue" thread. you know, kind of like it says.
    I don't buy that, who actually thought suspending him would have legal implications? I for one did not.

    Magical sig by OSUGiants

    SSAEL....... its a new revolution!


    Originally posted by Job
    On another note, Nicklas Backstrom is amazingly good.
    Meanwhile, in hockey the other night, the Washington Capitals' Eric Belanger gets hit with a stick, loses EIGHT teeth, has an instant root canal in the locker room, comes back out and PLAYS and never says boo.

    So new rule, NBA: Unless you have a root canal at halftime, SHUT UP AND PLAY!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by njx9
      as far as the CBA goes, there is no clause in the document that appears to specifically over-rule at-will employment in any circumstance except forfeiture of signing bonuses, which has nothing to do with the actual employment and everything to do with being paid the guaranteed money on your contract. further, there is absolutely no language in article XI that would in any way prohibit the comissioner from suspending a player, regardless of the conduct code. in fact, as far as i can tell, the conduct code is not mentioned anywhere in the CBA.

      i would imagine that the next time you say something like "clearly" or "obviously" it will be followed by an actual fact or quote or statistic showing why something is "clear" or "obvious".

      NFL CBA - http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx
      So what you're saying is that the NFL can suspend or even ban any player, at any time, for any reason? Why even have a conduct policy then? The reason is because they want to follow the guidelines they have setup to prevent people from being treated unfairly.

      If players are treated unfairly (i.e. not according to league policy) than the player and NFLPA will file a dispute. This will go to arbitration and if it clearly goes against league policy, you would only assume that the ruling would go in favour of the player.

      Now look at this:

      # Persons Charged With Criminal Activity
      # Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo an immediate, mandatory clinical evaluation and, if directed, appropriate counseling. Such evaluation and counseling must be performed under the direction and supervision of the NFL Vice President of Player and Employee Development. Failure to cooperate with evaluation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.
      It clearly states what happens when a player is charged with a criminal activity. This is the EXACT situation that Vick is in. Why would the NFL just abandon this policy?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by njx9
        that's not and has never been the issue here. the issue has been and still is the fact that people have argued that legally, the nfl is handcuffed. that simply isn't true. i have not once, nor has the OP, argued that it would be a good idea for the NFL to suspend him in terms of PR (both public and player relations). no one has argued that they'd be smart to suspend him beforehand in this or the other thread.
        Nobody here actually knows how the legal process would play out if Vick was suspended right now and then found innocent later. There are a million things to consider that even top judges and lawyers would have trouble sifting through. It's well beyond the scope of this forum but there would be an argument to be made for both sides.

        I'm not talking about what would be good for PR. In all honestly, suspending him would appease 99% of the people. I'm just saying that the NFL should follow their policy which is very clear in this matter. Suspending Vick would clearly go against the policy that they have written down.

        Basically my argument is that if the league were to listen to their own policy, they would not suspend Vick at this point in time. To my knowledge, the NFL has yet to breach their own policy when suspending players for violating the personal conduct policy. I can't see them doing it here.

        Comment

        Working...
        X

        Debug Information