WATCH TALK FORUMS banner

Do you agree with the judge's decision?

  • Yes. According to the contract, this was the correct decision.

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • No. As a convicted felon, he should give the money back.

    Votes: 6 54.5%
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
But U.S. District Judge David Doty of Minneapolis ruled that recovery of most of the bonus money by Atlanta would violate the NFL collective bargaining agreement. The agreement does not allow roster bonus money to be forfeited once it has been earned, the judge wrote.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.nflnotes05feb05,0,2166432.story

If this is correct, then the judge made the right decision.

The league might not think it's right, but if they agreed to that arrangement in collective bargaining, then it's matter of contract.

Of course, the league is upset that they are going to spend all that money on a man whose poor judgement landed him in jail, but the player's union is happy.

I understand that for the union the implications for this case go far beyond Michael Vick, but if they have any decency at all, they should distance themselves from this particular case and limit the expression of their joy to the fact that the terms of their contract have been upheld in court.

Vick should be banned for life and when the contract comes up for renewal, the league and the union should agree to provisions that would prevent a player from retaining bonuses for commitments he can not keep because of having been convicted of illegal activity.

Michael Vick has earned himself a place in the rogue's gallery of the NFL and it should hereafter be referred to as the Michael Vick Hall of Shame.

Naw!. He should just be shot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I put yes; but, I went according to the law. The way the contact was signed, Vick should not have to give the money back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,799 Posts
Well the point of contention is in the definition of what the verbiage means. I haven't seen the exact wording of the CBA, but as usual it comes down to a judges interpretation of what a certain provision says and the definition of the terms used. Remember, the previous ruling was the bonus was subject to recouping. So again, I guess it's all in how you refine the language.

I'm sure that Atlanta & the NFL will appeal the decision. After all, it's a huge amount of money to the cap. Then it'll be up to the next appeal to decide what the terminology menas... :confused1:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
I'm sure that Atlanta & the NFL will appeal the decision. After all, it's a huge amount of money to the cap. Then it'll be up to the next appeal to decide what the terminology menas...
On appeal, the court will look only at procedural matters, not the judge's interpretation of the contract.

If there were no judicial irregularities, the judgement will stand.

That's my experience with the courts, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,799 Posts
On appeal, the court will look only at procedural matters, not the judge's interpretation of the contract.

If there were no judicial irregularities, the judgment will stand.

That's my experience with the courts, anyway.
But if the appeal judge felt the original judge mis-interpreted the contract or provided an erroneous decision based on a mis-interpretation, wouldn't that be a procedural matter? IMO it gets funky in these contract type issues sometimes... :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
But if the appeal judge felt the original judge mis-interpreted the contract or provided an erroneous decision based on a mis-interpretation, wouldn't that be a procedural matter? IMO it gets funky in these contract type issues sometimes...
You might be correct.

But, I've never seen a ruling overturned because the court of appeals disagreed with the judge's or the jury's decision, only if there was some incorrect court procedure that would have influenced that decision.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I used to spend a very large part of my time in court for judicial reviews and testifying in civil and criminal trials.

It was during this time that I learned what to expect when a case is appealed.

Naturally, I was never involved in contract law.

But, as the case has been presented in the media, regardless of how distasteful or unfair it might seem that the team must pay a player under such circumstances, if that's what they agreed to, even if they could not have foreseen these circumstances, which seems unlikely, then they are going to have to pay.

So, it looks like Vick, despite a few months in jail and doing community service, is going to do pretty well.

He could even be reinstated.

We'll just have to wait and see.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top