New Orleans Saints Scandal Thread

[Ness]

Damn what a mess. I almost feel sorry for Saints fans.

[brat316]

well he still can suspend them for the pay for play system.

you think maybe other players came out and said something, but Godel doesn't want to release the info, to protect the players and not make Vilma feel...hmmm whats the word.

[SaintsMan]

Just to clear that up. It says in the CBA that players can't be suspended for pay for performance, only fined up to 500k

[ImBrotherCain]

Originally Posted by Ness

Damn what a mess. I almost feel sorry for Saints fans.

Its almost like old times when they couldn't win to save their lives.

[Bert Macklin]

How was right about the refs coming back I think he has a legit source.

Whats up world quick note who dat nation dont be shocked if Coach Payton suspension is resended when the COMM release the new penalties!!! 8:45am - 29 Sep 12

Resended as in 8 games instead of the whole year in should be intresting!!!!

[descendency]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

Exactly. A sworn affidavit means nothing since it's going against the word of several others. The longer this plays out, the more egg Goodell will have on his face.

Apparently, they have a sworn affidavit from Gregg Williams and Mike Cerullo as well as a ledger that the affidavits say ties players to pay for play/injure. They have a ton of additional (circumstantial) evidence of similar systems being run at previous locations where Gregg Williams was coaching.

What they seemingly don't have is a smoking gun pointing to individual players. (though, the clip of "give me my money" does point in that direction).

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Why would Goodell purposely try to tank one of his own teams if he didn't have proof? You guys are not thinking this through properly. The NFL wouldn't sully a member of it's own organization unless they were doing something improper.

Like how the Jets stated that needed to take Reggie Bush out of the game of the Dolphins?

[diabsoule]

Originally Posted by descendency

Apparently, they have a sworn affidavit from Gregg Williams and Mike Cerullo as well as a ledger that the affidavits say ties players to pay for play/injure. They have a ton of additional (circumstantial) evidence of similar systems being run at previous locations where Gregg Williams was coaching.

What they seemingly don't have is a smoking gun pointing to individual players. (though, the clip of "give me my money" does point in that direction).

The Bills and Redskins were cleared of conducting any bounty systems when Gregg Williams was there.

All they have is very circumstantial evidence that can't be pinned on any player in particular and won't hold up in federal court.

If Goodell loses in federal court and the penalties stemming from a bounty system were handed down without solid evidence then full reinstatement and restitution for everyone involved should be in order. At least I would think.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

If Goodell loses in federal court and the penalties stemming from a bounty system were handed down without solid evidence then full reinstatement and restitution for everyone involved should be in order. At least I would think.

You've misunderstood what that ruling was about.

The court said that Goodell had to clarify if he was punishing for "salary cap issues" or for a system of intent to injure. The court effectively said he had no grounds to punish for intent to injure (that's a court matter), the penalties were thus lifted. The ruling on the Vilma vs Goodell case hasn't been ruled on [that ruling is due next week].

The court never said that Goodell couldn't turn around and re-suspend them for "salary cap violations". Goodell isn't doing that because he knows it will just end up in court again. He wants it resolved.

I agree with you that the issues surrounding the players is different than the one surrounding the coaches (though, outside of the court... it's perfectly obvious that if one did it the other had to have done it). The NFL needs to show what evidence it has tying pay for performance to specific players, which is why Vilma launched his suit.

I just want to make this perfectly clear: There has not been (and may never be at this rate) a court case weighing the league's case which they used to suspend players in this matter. The cases so far have been far more nuanced than that.

[diabsoule]

And the joke continues.... According to Adam Schefter, Gregg Williams is now allowed to attend NFL games http://say.ly/wBt4hfM

[SaintsMan]

Goodell will say the players ran the bounty system and Sean Payton helped. GW is innonect!!

[saintsfan912]

Smells like a Vendetta against the Saints more than anything to do with a bounty system. Unbelievable.

[SaintsMan]

I still believe a bounty system never existed. Goodell never liked Sean Payton.

And how can Williams affidavit be looked at seriously when he gets rewarded right after signing it??? Also, MC and Williams affidavits both contradict each other for Williams part in this.

[SaintsMan]

And you know what's even more crazy about this GW going to the Rams game issue. Sean Payton isn't even allowed to attend any College games.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

And the joke continues.... According to Adam Schefter, Gregg Williams is now allowed to attend NFL games http://say.ly/wBt4hfM

He's still indefinitely banned from working in the NFL, though.

[Bert Macklin]

If this is true then the nfl has no case.

In the 1996 playoffs, Hall of Fame Packers defensive end Reggie White made a deal with his teammates: Make a big hit, and I’ll give you $500.

In its latest filing in the bounty case, a copy of which PFT has obtained, the NFLPA says that the NFL knew White was paying teammates for hits and allowed it to continue, and therefore is showing inconsistency now by suspending four players for a similar pay-for-performance program with the Saints.

The filing from the NFLPA in the bounty case discusses White’s “Smash for Cash” program, which included $500 payments for big hits. At the time, according to the NFLPA, the NFL said the program was OK “as long as players use their own money, amounts are not exorbitant and payments aren’t for illegal hits.”

The NFLPA says that the NFL’s rules haven’t changed since then, but the NFL’s PR agenda has.

“The fact that the NFL has a different agenda today than in 1996 can’t change the unequivocal language of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, which has never prohibited this behavior,” the NFLPA says in its filing.

Although White’s “Smash for Cash” program hasn’t often been brought up in connection with the Saints bounty case, White’s actions were no secret at the time. ESPN did a segment on White’s bonuses, the New York Daily News ran a headline declaring that White had offered to pay bounties, and in an Associated Press article from January of 1996, White is quoted as saying he handed out his entire $13,000 playoff bonus for a win over the 49ers to teammates.

“I gave them money for big hits,” White said. “I don’t know if the money is any more motivation, but I know I paid out a lot.”

The Associated Press article says that White had already told his teammates it would be the same deal for the next playoff game, against the Cowboys, and that NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said there was nothing wrong with what White did, likening it to a quarterback buying gifts for his offensive linemen.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ates-for-hits/

[Borat]

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

If this is true then the nfl has no case.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ates-for-hits/

That story failed to mention that Reggie White paid double if the big hit was delivered while simultaneously spouting a racist remark.

[Rosebud]

The Fuhrer can do what he wants.

[MetSox17]

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

If this is true then the nfl has no case.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ates-for-hits/

They're two completely different cases. White was paying for big hits. Vilma put up money to purposely injure someone and take them out of the game. Do you really not see the difference? Of course you do, you're just being a ridiculous homer again.

[Bert Macklin]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

They're two completely different cases. White was paying for big hits. Vilma put up money to purposely injure someone and take them out of the game. Do you really not see the difference? Of course you do, you're just being a ridiculous homer again.

There's no difference and you know it. You're just being a ridiculous hater again. That's all Vilma did. So there's a difference if those big hits white paid for knocked someone out of a game?

[njx9]

wait, so that entire argument boils down to, 'it was ok 16 years ago, so it must be ok now'?

******* brilliant.

[Bert Macklin]

Originally Posted by njx9

wait, so that entire argument boils down to, 'it was ok 16 years ago, so it must be ok now'?

******* brilliant.

Yes because the rules in the cba never changed.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

Yes because the rules in the cba never changed.

cool story.

[Bert Macklin]

Originally Posted by njx9

cool story.

It's really a pretty groovy story man. Like far out.

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

They're two completely different cases. White was paying for big hits. Vilma put up money to purposely injure someone and take them out of the game. Do you really not see the difference? Of course you do, you're just being a ridiculous homer again.

That is the whole issue at hand. Where is the proof that it was to purposefully injure someone? Vilma's camp has done more than a good job showing that this borders on a personal issue with Goodell.