Do you think the league should punish players for actions DURING the lockout?

The CBA is 300 pages long, I'm not reading this whole thing.

 

This argument is a little silly. To say that the players under contract are not employee's is legally not correct. I don't understand how you can not see that. Any thing else was just "lock out" politics. I would guess to prevent the clubs from being liable for any injury that might occur during that period of time. Teams do that all the time, remember the when McNair was "asked" not come to the facility. The team didn't want to be on the hook for that huge bonus he was due.

 

I'll tell you this, the league can do whatever they want. They can suspend someone for something they did during the lockout, but should that player choose to appeal that suspension, and show up to the appeal hearing with that document, it would make for an interesting situation. The teams sent a legal document to the players saying that during the lockout, they weren't active employees. That's gonna be tough to argue.

 

I don't think the league has the right to suspend players for things they did during the lockout, but I was disappointed that Munchak didn't take a harder stance on Britt...

I will say this, if the league is going to suspend these players, they need to do it this week. It wouldn't be fair to the coaches to suspend them in the middle of preseason when they are trying to get everyone up to speed, distributing reps and all that.

 

You are all missing the point. It doesn't matter what you want to happen, whether you think the league should or should not punish players that got into legal issues during the lockout. What matters is that the NFL/Goodell will, according to the new CBA "punish" those players. I would love to read this alleged letter that told the players they were not employees, so far I have only seen references to it on this forum. Nothing turned up on a google search.

 

All I now is, Kenny is in the clear. The team said they won't take action, and we already determined his lawyer is a magician.

 

I haven't read the new CBA, but I haven't heard about the conduct policy being part of the CBA. It never was before. The conduct policy has always been Goodell.

One Google search came up with this: Lockout Letter from NFL to NFLPA

Like it or not, the players have a decent argument. It was always the NFLPA's stance that the players are unemployed during the lockout. Think that's rubbish? Do your research. Workers are awarded unemployment benefits during a lockout.

You can keep reverting to "legally" but in a court room, a judge decides what is legal and what isn't.

• Not allowed on the premises
• No benefits
• No monetary compensation
• Contact with management not allowed

When a company denies their workers the opportunity to fulfill their contractual obligations, that's usually unemployment. Again, it would be up to the judges.

You're right, however. What we think has no impact on any outcome. We're just discussing it.

 

Are you serious that NFL players did not have a 'personal conduct' policy in their contracts???????

Surely one of them would have already sued the NFL over one of Goddells edicts. I really don't see how RG could punish players without their prior permission - signing a contract with a conduct policy.

 

I say no. Mostly because I want Kenny for all 16 games lol