quote:

Originally posted by crashoften:
You simply cannot collectively bargain away a workers state rights.

I say BS to this.

Any two adults or groups of adult can agree to any kind of contract.

If the NFL contract says players will not wear pink clothing at home while a member of the NFLPA and the players...or their reps sign that contract...then that is a binding deal. If you or your lawyers thinks a contract is infringing on your rights, it is your responsibility to have that part changed before you agree to sign it.

Maybe this is why TOG is hesitant about going to the Vikes.

Those Mn state laws make the end outcome interesting.

Perhaps as suggested the W's get suspended 4 4 away games as they will not be in Mn then

But IMHO (and I'm no Lawyer type) Starcaps was not sold legally by the manufacturer WHEN they decided to add the prescription diuretic into the formula. To buy it without a prescription makes it illegal to sell as it was being sold. It would be similiar to selling regular Vicks cough syrup, but with codeine mixed in (and not on the label) over the counter.

Because Starcaps was not being sold legally with the prescription diuretic mixed in it may have a bearing on how the Mn state law gets interpreted.

It's a stupid law to begin with, say your an Airline Pilot in MN, and they cant fire you for having .15% alcohol in your system as you attempt to fly a plane full of passengers. Only in minnehaha land.

P.S. Hey Crash, long time no see, hows it going.

quote:

It's a stupid law to begin with, say your an Airline Pilot in MN, and they cant fire you for having .15% alcohol in your system as you attempt to fly a plane full of passengers. Only in minnehaha land.

No wonder all my NWA flights out of MSP always seemed to be delayed, rerouted, or bumpy.

As for the Williams' it seems to me that it's just a matter of time- they will be suspended- it's just a matter of when. For the Vikings, that's a huge loss because as you saw toward the end of last season when both of those guys were not playing together they had difficulty stopping teams.

Good that it's their problem to deal with

Another interesting angle I just thought about is the league is NOT the W's employer.

Thus, the queens are not suspending the W sisters. And, the queens are their employer. If the queens were the ones suspending them then state law has more merit.

It's the NFL who is suspending them not their employer, per the CBA rules. This may overide state law ( a stupid law at that).

This just may have a bearing on the outcome as well. Of course a bunch of slapdick rube minnehaha jurists may see it otherwise.

Just pontificating (whatever that means).

quote:

Originally posted by DurangoDoug:

Just pontificating (whatever that means).

Greg Aiello is reportedly saying the league has no concerns about the merits of the case in state court. While that is exactly what I'd expect him to say, the particular wording is going to leave him looking like an idiot if he's wrong. I'm no lawyer and don't know all the ins and outs of labor laws, especially in Minnesota, but people do voluntarily surrender legal rights in the case of prenuptial agreements, so the basic legal principle is valid and accepted. I don't see why a labor union collectively bargaining those rights away would make a particular difference.

The bottom line is the Williams boys are probably going to have to take their lumps. Regardless of whether the policy is entirely fair in this particular case, it is the policy. They could have taken the suspension last season and been able to move on but winning the division and then getting bounced at home was more important to them.

crash are you for real? We aren't talking about 50 players here. We are talking about a handful that took a chance on something and that is THEIR fault. This masks steroid intake. I bet you also were supporting Man-Ram for the crap he was doing? Sheesh...

Crash's point only holds water if there is no language in the CBA about steroid masking agents and the players were unaware that such substances might jepordize their employment. But I doubt that is the case.

If we are still in the civilized world, contract law should apply. It has existed for thousands of years. Long before Minnesota was a state or America was discovered.

If you willingly give up some personal rights for the right to be a member of the NFL...the state has no business in that.

Latest update...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11799742

Pay to Play?

"The five players facing penalties in the StarCaps case nearly had a deal to avoid any suspensions, according to four sources with knowledge of the discussions.

During settlement talks as recent as May 22, sources said the league was willing to set aside the four-game suspensions for Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister, Will Smith, Kevin Williams and Pat Williams, but were asking the players to pay a “six-figure” fine instead. In addition, the union requested that appeals of suspensions no longer be heard by commissioner Roger Goodell or someone in the league office, according to three of the four aforementioned sources."

The "pay to play" shows you just how bad the NFL wants Minny to succeed

They need a new stadium and in addition to an easy schedule start, the League was willing to allow them to buy their way out of the suspensions.

Anything to prop up that joke of a franchise, the one that needed three extensions just to sell out a playoff game at home. Goodell doesn't realize how far he is going to have to go to make up for the Triangle of Ineptitude.

quote:

Originally posted by Slayer:
Agree, the title of this thread should be changed, it's total BS at this point. Like saying you're on the 30 yard line so you WILL come away with points.

Wide right yahoos

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4223943

Just saw this on ESPN.com. Looks like we may be playing the queens with both Williams's.

Now the Williams boys claim the NFL is retaliating against them.

http://www.twincities.com/viki...49539

They ought to get used to feeling the heat from the league. I'm not saying it's right, but ask Al Davis how he thinks he's been treated by the league after suing them so many times. Regardless of how all this plays out, the Williams boys have pissed off a lot of people at corporate headquarters.

All I have to say is, they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. It's not a right. They have no legal stance here if a judge opens his eyes and sees that

quote:

If we are still in the civilized world, contract law should apply. It has existed for thousands of years. Long before Minnesota was a state or America was discovered.

In my experience, contractual law supercedes state law, i.e. overtime rules.

No federal judge wants to get involved in a contractual dispute- in fact- it is usually that issue that causes these things to get resolved quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
All I have to say is, they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. It's not a right. They have no legal stance here if a judge opens his eyes and sees that

Colin Cowherd was the first person I ever heard say this, but he is absolutely right. Playing in the NFL is not a privilege, it is a job and as such there are some pretty significant rights that come with that job. I am not suprised the judge did not simply throw this out, wrong as I think the Williams' are.

My question is how can either of them sue for violating a policy that exists. The league should not allow them to play period in other states where it exists. This would give the NFL the right and then the Williams Sisters wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I can't wait until Karma bites Fat Pat and Dirtbag Kevin in the ass.