Things are starting to get very interesting. On the heels of the reports yesterday that the NFL had offered Jonathan Vilma a settlement—a reduction in his suspension in exchange for dropping his defamation lawsuit against Goodell—comes a new report that Vilma’s lawyer is asking the court to investigate whether or not the NFL broke a confidentiality agreement in leaking news of the negotiations.
Which means: Vilma is looking at settling. Maybe not too hard, but he’s looking, all the same.
What’s more difficult to figure out is why the NFL would leak the news. Were they negotiating in good faith, or trying to set Vilma up? Was this all a ploy to make is seem that Vilma were tacitly admitting guilt? And if so: why did Vilma and his legal team fall for it?
I have trouble believing that’s the case because, first of all, it’s too pat; and besides, violating a confidentiality agreement could possibly get them in a lot of trouble. Or could it? Was the court involved in any way in these discussions? Did the NFL (if it violated anything at all) violate a court order, or merely a clause in a civil contract? Was there a clause specifying damages in the event of a violation? If not…what’s the court supposed to do?
In the end—<obligatory disclaimer>and I’m not a lawyer</obligatory disclaimer>—to me this all sounds like…hell, I don’t know. I suppose time will tell. I wonder, though, if we’ll be able to understand a word coming out of its mouth.
Kinda like Jeff Duncan, who’s still at it. Duncan has another piece at the Sometimes-Picayune extolling his superior wisdom and castigating both sides for failing to consult him. In particular, he singles out Vilma, who he says “wants the entire case vacated by the federal court and won’t stop until his record and name are completely cleared.” Okay, fine: sounds like an innocent man who wants to repair the damage done to his reputation. Oh, wait: isn’t that exactly what he’s said? So why does Duncan insist that “It’d be in his best interest to take the settlement and run”?
Oh. The money. Right. I guess when your reputation is in tatters anyway (or when you work for a doomed company), all that’s left is snatching up whatever coin you get get your mitts on. And who knows? Maybe that’s the course Vilma will choose. If he does, Jeff will nod sagely and congratulate Jonathan on his wisdom, and the rest of us will feel disgusted and betrayed. Call me old-fashioned: I’d rather feel disgusted and betrayed. As unpleasant as it may be, I could still live with myself.
GSO Saints FanAugust 7, 2012 at 11:32 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Is that a real poncho, or is it a Sears poncho?
Breesus Christ SuperstarAugust 7, 2012 at 11:39 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
They’ve got Goodell by the balls. Now, don’t let go.
FriarBobAugust 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Hey wait a second. Those settlement talks were mandated, not asked for by Vilma. Just because he’s being a good boy and obeying the law doesn’t mean he wants to settle.
HimselfAugust 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Okay, I missed something. Did Berrigan issue an order for them to undergo settlement talks, or is that part of the CBA, or what?
FriarBobAugust 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Unless I’m very much mistaken, it was actually more like automatic. I’m pretty sure every court case is required to at least talk about settlement these days just because the courts are so badly overworked.
Now that I think about it, I can’t cite specific evidence that it was mandated. So I guess I overstated things there. But I’m about 95% sure it was either “semi-automatic” or at least “very strongly encouraged” by Berrigan and/or the court system.
FriarBobAugust 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
OK I commented too fast, didn’t see the “Sometimes-Picayune” crack… so now I gotta comment again. I LOVE IT!!!
FriarBobAugust 7, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
An interesting link that you might want to use tomorrow.
http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2012/8/7/3226245/what-the-hell-goodell
I’d like to see this as CSC’s new tagline, but they probably don’t have the guts. Perhaps you do, however?
Dave CarielloAugust 7, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
The guts? That line isn’t particularly out of pocket or offensive. I wouldn’t put it as the tagline because there are better bounty related lines.
FriarBobAugust 8, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
So why isn’t there one up already?
stujo4August 7, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Vilma is guilty. He needs to settle, get another magic treatment on his knee, and take his job back from Lofton (who is a liability in coverage).
Doc BoudinAugust 8, 2012 at 12:04 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
I feel like I’ve seen this before. I don’t suppose you know some dude on CSC named, what was it, TeddyRoosevelt’sNutsack? No, that wasn’t it. Wait, it’ll come to me…
GSO Saints FanAugust 8, 2012 at 12:06 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Himself, would you please do the sane and at least semi-rational folks that hang in your joint a big favor and just b&hammer this turd in a punchbowl. It’d have the added benefits of lowering your bandwidth usage AND no one would pee in your bar when you’re not babysitting the place.
That, or let Lofton have a crack at him in a bit of the old Oklahoma drill.
THEN ban him. I’d prefer that version.
Dave CarielloAugust 7, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Welcome back, Himself. Hope you enjoyed your break. Short Stop po-boys?
HimselfAugust 8, 2012 at 8:02 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 Please log in to vote
Yeah, roast beef for me and shrimp for Herself. The shrimp was excellent. The roast beef was okay…which means it was head and shoulders above whatever we can get here.