leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
This story just goes to show how the nfl doesn't care about diversity in its ranks. This podcast was 2 years ago, but now its being brought to light?
Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
Brian Flores lawsuit, etc.
- Thread starter djohn2oo8
- Start date
My point stands
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Why would this surprise you. The Hue Jackson tankings occurred back in 2016 and 2017, and Jackson tried to go internally. I fell on deaf ears.
The Rooney rule itself is a sham.
Owners should be allowed to hire whoever they want to hire. They invested their money and accepted the risk.
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
This is America, nothing surprises me when it comes to those with power vs those without.
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
So is the draft. Players should be allowed to go where they want like in the free world
And be a FA every yr. I would love to see yr to yr performance based contracts with every player in the NFL. You get hurt or under perform then too bad.
Fact is when you put up the money to own a team you get to make the rules. Players may not like it, but the way the NFL is setup has made them the most popular sport in this country. They've made a lot more money for the players with this system than the one you're proposing.
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
I'm talking equality in a sphere. You know why the nfl is so popular in north america? The following. You can watch a player for 3 yrs minimum and follow him to the next team. You also have short season aspect in which every game is an event. They have alot of corporate protections even though they're 32 seperate entities. If they got rid of the draft, which we know will never happen, poorly run teams wouldn't stand a chance, which is the way real business operates.
Like I said if you want true equality then do what I'm talking about. It also would give all teams a better chance to win.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Hue Jackson claims he tried to blow whistle on Browns “two years ago”
April 19, 2022, 6:43 AM EDT
When a statement appeared last night on Twitter from the Browns regarding the existence of an NFL investigation into claims of tanking made in early February by former head coach Hue Jackson, the reason for the timing of the disclosure wasn’t immediately clear. As it turns out, the Browns were providing a quote to SI.com in connection with an investigation on the matter.
As part of the investigation, SI.com obtained a comment directly from Jackson. He claims he previously reported the situation to the NFL.
“Two years ago I tried to do this the right way, through the bylaws and constitution of the National Football League, to ask them to investigate the Cleveland Browns for all the allegations that I’ve made,” Jackson said. “So why open an investigation now?”
It’s the latest confusing comment from Jackson on the matter. He made the claim that he was paid to lose games, and then he retreated from it. Now, he’s going the other way.
As explained last night, this may not be a situation of Jackson claiming that he received a specific offer of money for losing games. Instead, Jackson could be alleging that the Browns had a system of incentives tied to factors that made it harder to win, such as unused cap space or stockpiled draft picks or other factors that would point to an analytics-based strategy of building a better team in the future by not being very good in the present.
That’s essentially what Dolphins owner Stephen Ross wanted, based on the claims made by former Dolphins coach Brian Flores. Ross wasn’t looking to lose games because he was placing bets on the team’s opponents. Ross, under the theory advanced by Flores, wanted to lose games in 2019 in order to secure the top pick in the 2020 draft.
The Browns, on Jackson’s watch, secured the No. 1 overall pick in 2017 and 2018. Thus, if they had a system of incentives based on losing now to win later, the first part worked. The second part didn’t work quite as well, at least not yet.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
If you had no salary cap, and FA for every player every year, you wouldn't have equality................and poorly run teams would easily survive if the owners had all the money in the world that they would be willing and able to spend and lose.
Last edited:
Maybe. . .if they weren't using TAXPAYER MONEY to fund their massively expensive playgrounds.
But using public money leaves them wide open to this kind of scrutiny.
And what "risk" are you talking about? NFL franchises are guaranteed bank. The McNairs made back their investment within the first few years and it's been nothing but Easy Street since then with the NFL's revenue sharing and massive TV contracts.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
All this is going to do is drive it all underground…or rather behind the owners closed mahogany doors and meep their plans all to themselves. It’ll be The equivalent in history of going from outright slavery to psuedo-slavery with sharecropping. There is no 1 rule that will prevent these &@#k’s from continuing to circumvent the process.
Cant believe the Haslams & Ross were stupid enough to openly proposition these guys to lose games…but then again its the Dolphins and Browns so maybe they are that dumb.
You gotta create more of a space for minorities to get in & box the owners into a corner as much as possible. The only way i can see it getting even close to fair and equal is if the NFL institutes a training program which mandates that any HC hired have at least 5-7 years as a position coach & 3 years in as a primary coordinator for an NFL team….and that only makes you eligible to be interviewed. No more of guys getting interviews /gigs with no previous or very little NFL experience on the sidelines as coaches and/or primary coordinators…or guys only having like 1 year as a primary coordinator and then getting interviews and gigs b/c his loaded offense or defense was good the prior year. That criteria alone eliminates at least 15+ current HC's from getting in the door over perhaps more qualified minority HC's.
add to that Any HC fired who already has all that criteria can’t be hired for at least 2 years after they’ve been fired and/or left their previous HC gig. That right there makes another 2-3 current HC's ineligible from being hired when they were fired by their previous teams (Mike McCarthy, Ron Rivera & Doug Pederson)........4 if you count Sean Peyton who stepped down this past year.
Cant believe the Haslams & Ross were stupid enough to openly proposition these guys to lose games…but then again its the Dolphins and Browns so maybe they are that dumb.
You gotta create more of a space for minorities to get in & box the owners into a corner as much as possible. The only way i can see it getting even close to fair and equal is if the NFL institutes a training program which mandates that any HC hired have at least 5-7 years as a position coach & 3 years in as a primary coordinator for an NFL team….and that only makes you eligible to be interviewed. No more of guys getting interviews /gigs with no previous or very little NFL experience on the sidelines as coaches and/or primary coordinators…or guys only having like 1 year as a primary coordinator and then getting interviews and gigs b/c his loaded offense or defense was good the prior year. That criteria alone eliminates at least 15+ current HC's from getting in the door over perhaps more qualified minority HC's.
add to that Any HC fired who already has all that criteria can’t be hired for at least 2 years after they’ve been fired and/or left their previous HC gig. That right there makes another 2-3 current HC's ineligible from being hired when they were fired by their previous teams (Mike McCarthy, Ron Rivera & Doug Pederson)........4 if you count Sean Peyton who stepped down this past year.
Last edited:
The Rooney rule should have been just the first step. A review of the hiring process should have been implemented by the NFL to ensure these teams were in compliance with the spirit of the rule. Documentation of the interview process and the criteria for selection of the candidates. Videos of the interviews, written justifications as to why candidate A was selected over candidate B. This was never done in a serious manner.
I bet it will be serious from now on.
I bet it will be serious from now on.
I like your ideas, and they would certainly prevent the Houston Texans from doing something beyond stupid by hiring Josh McCown for HC.
That he was even a seriously considered candidate says it all. The McNairs seem to care about optics more than actual experience, and that includes hiring Lovie as a direct result of this lawsuit. Maybe it'll work out for us in the end by the way of unintended consequences, but the process leading up to it was highly suspect.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
yeah he, Culley and Kingsbury were was at the forefront of my brain when i wrote that post lol.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Transparency as its best.
******************
NFL intends to try to force entire Brian Flores case into secret arbitration
April 21, 2022, 3:34 PM EDT
The NFL currently faces a landmark piece of litigation aimed at forcing meaningful and needed change in the head-coaching hiring and firing practices of the league’s 32 teams. The NFL intends to try to divert the entire case from an independent, public tribunal into a secret, rigged kangaroo court.
In a civil case management plan and scheduling order submitted by the parties on Thursday, the league and the various teams that have been named in the case express an intention to file a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
“We have said from the start that if the NFL wants to create change, the first step is to allow for transparency,” attorney Douglas H. Wigdor and John Elefterakis said in a statement. “The NFL’s attempt to force these claims into arbitration demonstrates an unmistakable desire to avoid any public accountability and ensure that these claims are litigated behind closed doors in a forum stacked against our clients. We will fight this request in court, but Mr. Goodell should have done the right thing, disclaimed arbitration altogether and allowed this case to be tried before a jury representing a cross-section of the community, just like those who watch football.”
In cases filed against the league or its teams, the NFL routinely attempts to invoke an arbitration process that typically calls for the claims to be resolved in a private arbitration resolved by Commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee. It’s impossible for anyone to get a truly fair outcome in a case brought against the NFL or against one or more of the teams that employ and compensate the Commissioner.
The NFL persists with this practice because, like many American employers, the league loathes the idea of public accountability for potential misconduct. Also, like many American employers, the NFL realizes that a private arbitration process is far less likely to result in the kind of verdict a jury of average citizens would impose against the league and/or its teams.
Any company that does the right thing by its workers and has nothing to hide should have no qualms about defending itself in open, public court against any and all claims. The NFL wants to have every single claim ever made against it to be resolved in a process that it both inherently secret and necessarily rigged. What does that say about whether the NFL believes the league and its teams does the right thing by its current or former employees?
It’s a decision to be rendered by the court of public opinion, and there’s nothing the NFL can do to control that outcome.
*********************************************************************************************
******************
NFL intends to try to force entire Brian Flores case into secret arbitration
April 21, 2022, 3:34 PM EDT
The NFL currently faces a landmark piece of litigation aimed at forcing meaningful and needed change in the head-coaching hiring and firing practices of the league’s 32 teams. The NFL intends to try to divert the entire case from an independent, public tribunal into a secret, rigged kangaroo court.
In a civil case management plan and scheduling order submitted by the parties on Thursday, the league and the various teams that have been named in the case express an intention to file a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
“We have said from the start that if the NFL wants to create change, the first step is to allow for transparency,” attorney Douglas H. Wigdor and John Elefterakis said in a statement. “The NFL’s attempt to force these claims into arbitration demonstrates an unmistakable desire to avoid any public accountability and ensure that these claims are litigated behind closed doors in a forum stacked against our clients. We will fight this request in court, but Mr. Goodell should have done the right thing, disclaimed arbitration altogether and allowed this case to be tried before a jury representing a cross-section of the community, just like those who watch football.”
In cases filed against the league or its teams, the NFL routinely attempts to invoke an arbitration process that typically calls for the claims to be resolved in a private arbitration resolved by Commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee. It’s impossible for anyone to get a truly fair outcome in a case brought against the NFL or against one or more of the teams that employ and compensate the Commissioner.
The NFL persists with this practice because, like many American employers, the league loathes the idea of public accountability for potential misconduct. Also, like many American employers, the NFL realizes that a private arbitration process is far less likely to result in the kind of verdict a jury of average citizens would impose against the league and/or its teams.
Any company that does the right thing by its workers and has nothing to hide should have no qualms about defending itself in open, public court against any and all claims. The NFL wants to have every single claim ever made against it to be resolved in a process that it both inherently secret and necessarily rigged. What does that say about whether the NFL believes the league and its teams does the right thing by its current or former employees?
It’s a decision to be rendered by the court of public opinion, and there’s nothing the NFL can do to control that outcome.
*********************************************************************************************
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Roger Goodell: I have great respect for Brian Flores, we want to do better on diversity
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 28, 2022, 7:31 PM EDT
**********************************************************************************************
My good ole friend Brian........I'd do anything for him..............to go away...........
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 28, 2022, 7:31 PM EDT
**********************************************************************************************
My good ole friend Brian........I'd do anything for him..............to go away...........
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
This is what happens when the NFL performs "internal investigation."
***********************************************************************************************************
Hue Jackson’s tanking claim focused on a “4-year plan” that, in the first two years, did not incentivize winning
May 3, 2022, 5:44 PM EDT
Former Browns coach Hue Jackson ultimately refused to cooperate with the investigation triggered by his public comments in reaction to former Dolphins coach Brian Flores’s claim that he was offered $100,000 per loss in 2019. But someone (maybe Jackson) is talking a blue streak to SI.com regarding allegations he initially made in a failed arbitration claim filed in the league’s in-house secret rigged kangaroo court.
Gary Gramling and Conor Orr of SI.com have written a lengthy article that delves into Jackson’s effort to take action against the Browns, a legal odyssey apparently motivated by Jackson’s desire to remove the cloud that a 3-36-1 record in Cleveland has put over his career.
The full article is worth a read. This is an effort to streamline and synthesize the broader points.
First, the Browns used a detailed system of incentives for Jackson and members of the personnel department. The incentives were documented in a “4-year plan,” which had different specific factors for each season from 2016 through 2019.
The “4-year plan” was detailed in a booklet that SI.com was unable to obtain. However, the article includes the incentive formula under the 4-year plan. And it definitely shows that winning was not prioritized — or rewarded — in 2016 or 2017.
For example, incentives were earned in 2016 if the team ranked in the bottom quarter of cash spent, and if at least 15 percent of the available cap space was carried over. Incentives were earned in 2016 and 2017 if the team was in the top half of the league in youngest players, via a metric called “snap-weighted age.”
By 2018, one of the factors on the incentive package became winning at least 10 games. For the first two years, there was no incentive tied to winning any number of games. That distinction alone could be used as proof that winning simply wasn’t a consideration for Cleveland in the first two years of Jackson’s tenure.
An unnamed coaching agent told SI.com after reviewing the incentive package, “If I got that sent to me, the first thing I’d think was ‘Holy ****, this is, like, a tank bonus.”
Second, Jackson’s effort to basically clear his name via a legal claim (he sought compensation for breach of contract, fraud, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Browns, along with punitive damages) was derailed in the league’s arbitration process because he had signed a release of all claims in order to get his buyout. So, basically, he never really had much of a chance to even prove his case before the lawyer Commissioner Roger Goodell appointed to handle the arbitration.
Jackson’s case, if it has been heard, would have included arguments that the Browns misled him during the hiring process, “and that the team set out to intentionally lose games over a two-year span, set up Jackson as a dupe, and scapegoated and defamed him in public comments by prominent members of the organization.”
THE REST OF THE STORY
***********************************************************************************************************
Hue Jackson’s tanking claim focused on a “4-year plan” that, in the first two years, did not incentivize winning
May 3, 2022, 5:44 PM EDT
Former Browns coach Hue Jackson ultimately refused to cooperate with the investigation triggered by his public comments in reaction to former Dolphins coach Brian Flores’s claim that he was offered $100,000 per loss in 2019. But someone (maybe Jackson) is talking a blue streak to SI.com regarding allegations he initially made in a failed arbitration claim filed in the league’s in-house secret rigged kangaroo court.
Gary Gramling and Conor Orr of SI.com have written a lengthy article that delves into Jackson’s effort to take action against the Browns, a legal odyssey apparently motivated by Jackson’s desire to remove the cloud that a 3-36-1 record in Cleveland has put over his career.
The full article is worth a read. This is an effort to streamline and synthesize the broader points.
First, the Browns used a detailed system of incentives for Jackson and members of the personnel department. The incentives were documented in a “4-year plan,” which had different specific factors for each season from 2016 through 2019.
The “4-year plan” was detailed in a booklet that SI.com was unable to obtain. However, the article includes the incentive formula under the 4-year plan. And it definitely shows that winning was not prioritized — or rewarded — in 2016 or 2017.
For example, incentives were earned in 2016 if the team ranked in the bottom quarter of cash spent, and if at least 15 percent of the available cap space was carried over. Incentives were earned in 2016 and 2017 if the team was in the top half of the league in youngest players, via a metric called “snap-weighted age.”
By 2018, one of the factors on the incentive package became winning at least 10 games. For the first two years, there was no incentive tied to winning any number of games. That distinction alone could be used as proof that winning simply wasn’t a consideration for Cleveland in the first two years of Jackson’s tenure.
An unnamed coaching agent told SI.com after reviewing the incentive package, “If I got that sent to me, the first thing I’d think was ‘Holy ****, this is, like, a tank bonus.”
Second, Jackson’s effort to basically clear his name via a legal claim (he sought compensation for breach of contract, fraud, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Browns, along with punitive damages) was derailed in the league’s arbitration process because he had signed a release of all claims in order to get his buyout. So, basically, he never really had much of a chance to even prove his case before the lawyer Commissioner Roger Goodell appointed to handle the arbitration.
Jackson’s case, if it has been heard, would have included arguments that the Browns misled him during the hiring process, “and that the team set out to intentionally lose games over a two-year span, set up Jackson as a dupe, and scapegoated and defamed him in public comments by prominent members of the organization.”
THE REST OF THE STORY
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
NFL deemed Browns’ “4-year plan” a “multi-year rebuilding program”
May 3, 2022, 9:07 PM EDT
Tomato, tomahto. Tanking, rebuilding.
It’s a distinction without a real difference. The NFL nevertheless tried, in its assessment of the investigation of the allegations made by former Browns coach Hue Jackson, to find that the team did not try to lose. The NFL did not specifically address, however, whether the Browns were actually trying to win when implementing what the franchise dubbed a “4-year plan.”
PFT has obtained a copy of the letter sent by Commissioner Roger Goodell to Browns owner Jimmy Haslam regarding the decision that Jackson’s claims could not be substantiated.
In the letter, dated May 2, Goodell writes that the investigation “found no evidence that the Browns ‘tanked’ in the 2016-17 seasons, or that the Four-Year Plan incentivized losses.”
Goodell explains that the “Four-Year Plan” was adopted after the Browns had finished last in the AFC North in seven of the previous eight seasons and had won more than five games only once during that same period.
“There was a general recognition that the team was not competitive and that a significant and multi-year rebuilding program was necessary for the Browns to compete in a division that included some strong rivals like the Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers,” Goodell writes. “The Plan was initially developed by executives in the football department; Coach Jackson himself reviewed the plan and suggested changes to the Plan’s incentive compensation metrics, which were accepted. Coach Jackson thereafter agreed to all of the Plan’s metrics for the 2016-2019 seasons.”
Goodell then explains that the investigation found no proof that the Browns “tanked” any game in 2016 or 2017, and that no one “in ownership, the football department, or coaching staff encouraged losses or discouraged winning to improve the club’s draft position.” He adds that the investigation did not find evidence that anyone with the Browns “made decisions deliberately to weaken the team to secure a more favorable draft position.” Goodell notes that the club placed more of an emphasis on the overall number of picks than on a particular draft position.
Goodell alternatively could have concluded, if he had so chosen, that the “Four-year plan” reveals numerous factors that definitely did not incentivize winning. As noted in the formula obtained by SI.com, the last two years of the plan included incentives based on winning. The first two most definitely did not.
Moreover, the notion that the plan didn’t seek to improve draft position but prioritized overall picks ignores the obvious connection between the two. The higher a team drafts in a given round, the more easily those picks can be flipped for more selections. Thus, the tanking incentive, while not express, is absolutely implied.
The fair takeaway from the league’s finding is simple. While evidence of efforts to lose specific games will result in serious problems, a broader, long-term effort to build a better team in the future by not valuing factors that lead directly to winning now will be respected — as long as the formula and language is sufficiently convoluted and complicated to never directly suggest that the team tried to lose any given game. If the team is generally not trying to win every given game, the folks at 345 Park Avenue will say that’s fine and dandy.
Unless, of course, they decide in any given case that they want to conclude otherwise. If we’ve learned nothing else over the years, we’ve learned that the league does whatever it wants to do, and that it massages the facts and their interpretation to fit the preferred outcome in any/every given case.
Nothing is going to "make it serious from now on." These owners are going to hire who they want to hire.
They'll jump thru your hoops ..... and still hire the guy they wanted to hire in the first place.
But lets cut to the chase, any "rule" that takes into consideration the color of one's skin shouldn't be a rule to begin with.
All this race rules are moving us backwards ..... not forward.
So much for that....
Hmmm , so much for that too ....
Meh ....
.....
It’s already had an effect right here in Houston. Moving from Jack’s choice, McCown, to Lovie.
As for “cutting to the chase”, none of what you posted is football relevant and should be removed by yourself. I will say it’s one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve seen since the NSZ days.
Last edited:
You are making crap up, Jack had nothing to do with the decision to hire Lovie.
That decision was made by Cal and it had nothing to do with race but merit. One of the candidates was qualified, the other .... not so much.
They missed the boat on any of the new / up and coming candidates placating Janice McNair but they had one in house who's been an NFL head coach and had reached the Superbowl as a head coach ...
You forget that the Texans have been way ahead of the curve when it comes to hiring of minorities .... they are one of the very few teams who have had a person of color at GM, HC, OC , DC & QB at some point in time.
So its Ok to discuss the Rooney rule .... but not debating the merits of said rule or the usefulness of it?
The rule is completely ineffective and degrading to those POC who get used in the process.
It hasn't once created the desired results.
Neither is giving away draft compensation to teams who lose a coach based upon the color of a coaches skin a good idea.
Basing any decision off of race is just plain stupid.
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Evidently, the NFL corroborated Flores claim that the Dolphins owner at least offered to pay for the team to lose.
This is a piece that everyone should read...........in order to truly understand the misleading concept of the "NFL independent investigator."
************************************************************
The Stephen Ross investigation continues; when will it conclude?
Posted by Mike Florio on May 29, 2022, 9:40 AM EDT
The bad thing about a Roger Goodell press conference is that no single topic receives thorough treatment. The good news is that plenty of topics receive at least a cursory mention.
During his recent meeting with reporters after the conclusion of league meetings in Atlanta, Goodell was asked for an update regarding the investigation sparked by allegations from former Dolphins coach Brian Flores that team owner Stephen Ross offered to pay $100,000 per loss in 2019.
“There is not any update on that,” Goodell said. He added that Mary Jo White — the supposed “independent” lawyer who currently is handling multiple “independent” investigations for the league — continues to look into the situation.
How hard can it be? How much time can it take? Ross made the offer, or he didn’t.
Flores claims he did. Although speaking directly to Flores raises potential complications given that his lawsuit contends, among other things, that his firing was motivated by his resistance to this request and efforts to blow the whistle on it, White has indeed (we’re told) interviewed Flores. He cooperated fully with the investigation in April.
From there, White can pursue any leads the Flores may have identified — specifically, other witnesses to the offer. Back in February, the league-owned media conglomerate reported that an unnamed witness did indeed corroborate the claim Flores had made. Likewise, emails, text messages, and other relevant documents from the time period in question can be gathered and reviewed.
Eventually, Ross and other key members of Dolphins management would be interviewed.
It really shouldn’t take very long to do all of it. Unless Mary Jo White is so occupied with other NFL work that she doesn’t have time to get it done.
We’ve been saying for years as it relates to White and other supposedly “independent” investigators that there’s no true independence. The lifeblood of large corporate law firms (years ago, I worked for one in Pittsburgh) is what they call “cost-insensitive clients.” These firms want to be hired and hired and hired again to work on significant projects that will entail minimal scrutiny of the massive monthly invoices generated. The notoriety of projects like these also will get the lawyer’s name mentioned in various media platforms, which will help the lawyer and her firm more work from other cost-insensitive clients.
The point is that, in order to continue to get these assignments, the lawyer has to be sufficiently savvy to understand what the client wants, and to gently nudge the findings that way.
Most contested issues have multiple plausible outcomes. This one obviously does. It’s a binary choice; Ross did it, or he didn’t.
Although some think the league won’t hesitate to find Ross guilty of making a specific offer of cash for losing games, the broader context could make such a finding unwise. From the Flores lawsuit to the potential impact of such a declaration on the external scrutiny the NFL currently is experiencing to potential criminals liability under the Sports Betting Act to possibility of a class-action lawsuit against the league on behalf of anyone who placed bets on the Dolphins in 2019 to the league’s stubborn and unrealistic insistence that no team ever tanks, chances are that the NFL just wants this one to go away quietly.
If so, chances are that the “independent” lawyer the NFL has hired to investigate will find a way to do just that. Eventually. And inevitably.
This is a piece that everyone should read...........in order to truly understand the misleading concept of the "NFL independent investigator."
************************************************************
The Stephen Ross investigation continues; when will it conclude?
Posted by Mike Florio on May 29, 2022, 9:40 AM EDT
The bad thing about a Roger Goodell press conference is that no single topic receives thorough treatment. The good news is that plenty of topics receive at least a cursory mention.
During his recent meeting with reporters after the conclusion of league meetings in Atlanta, Goodell was asked for an update regarding the investigation sparked by allegations from former Dolphins coach Brian Flores that team owner Stephen Ross offered to pay $100,000 per loss in 2019.
“There is not any update on that,” Goodell said. He added that Mary Jo White — the supposed “independent” lawyer who currently is handling multiple “independent” investigations for the league — continues to look into the situation.
How hard can it be? How much time can it take? Ross made the offer, or he didn’t.
Flores claims he did. Although speaking directly to Flores raises potential complications given that his lawsuit contends, among other things, that his firing was motivated by his resistance to this request and efforts to blow the whistle on it, White has indeed (we’re told) interviewed Flores. He cooperated fully with the investigation in April.
From there, White can pursue any leads the Flores may have identified — specifically, other witnesses to the offer. Back in February, the league-owned media conglomerate reported that an unnamed witness did indeed corroborate the claim Flores had made. Likewise, emails, text messages, and other relevant documents from the time period in question can be gathered and reviewed.
Eventually, Ross and other key members of Dolphins management would be interviewed.
It really shouldn’t take very long to do all of it. Unless Mary Jo White is so occupied with other NFL work that she doesn’t have time to get it done.
We’ve been saying for years as it relates to White and other supposedly “independent” investigators that there’s no true independence. The lifeblood of large corporate law firms (years ago, I worked for one in Pittsburgh) is what they call “cost-insensitive clients.” These firms want to be hired and hired and hired again to work on significant projects that will entail minimal scrutiny of the massive monthly invoices generated. The notoriety of projects like these also will get the lawyer’s name mentioned in various media platforms, which will help the lawyer and her firm more work from other cost-insensitive clients.
The point is that, in order to continue to get these assignments, the lawyer has to be sufficiently savvy to understand what the client wants, and to gently nudge the findings that way.
Most contested issues have multiple plausible outcomes. This one obviously does. It’s a binary choice; Ross did it, or he didn’t.
Although some think the league won’t hesitate to find Ross guilty of making a specific offer of cash for losing games, the broader context could make such a finding unwise. From the Flores lawsuit to the potential impact of such a declaration on the external scrutiny the NFL currently is experiencing to potential criminals liability under the Sports Betting Act to possibility of a class-action lawsuit against the league on behalf of anyone who placed bets on the Dolphins in 2019 to the league’s stubborn and unrealistic insistence that no team ever tanks, chances are that the NFL just wants this one to go away quietly.
If so, chances are that the “independent” lawyer the NFL has hired to investigate will find a way to do just that. Eventually. And inevitably.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
The NFL is now getting scrutiny from congress.
*********************************************************
NFL will respond to request for Roger Goodell testimony “in a timely manner”
June 1, 2022, 3:24 PM EDT
The NFL hasn’t said yes, but it hasn’t said no.
In response to the request from the U.S. House Oversight & Reform Committee for testimony on June 22 from Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy provided this comment to PFT via email on Wednesday: “We received the Committee’s invitation this morning and will respond directly in a timely manner. The NFL has cooperated extensively throughout the Committee’s lengthy investigation of the Washington Commanders, including by producing more than 460,000 pages of documents and responding to numerous questions in writing and in conversations with the Committee’s staff.”
The NFL had hoped, frankly, to avoid having the investigation into the Washington Commanders become a full-blown hearing. The hearing is happening, whether Goodell shows up or not.
The Committee also invited Commanders owner Daniel Snyder to testify. The team had no comment in response to a request via text message.
*********************************************************
NFL will respond to request for Roger Goodell testimony “in a timely manner”
June 1, 2022, 3:24 PM EDT
The NFL hasn’t said yes, but it hasn’t said no.
In response to the request from the U.S. House Oversight & Reform Committee for testimony on June 22 from Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy provided this comment to PFT via email on Wednesday: “We received the Committee’s invitation this morning and will respond directly in a timely manner. The NFL has cooperated extensively throughout the Committee’s lengthy investigation of the Washington Commanders, including by producing more than 460,000 pages of documents and responding to numerous questions in writing and in conversations with the Committee’s staff.”
The NFL had hoped, frankly, to avoid having the investigation into the Washington Commanders become a full-blown hearing. The hearing is happening, whether Goodell shows up or not.
The Committee also invited Commanders owner Daniel Snyder to testify. The team had no comment in response to a request via text message.