For sure!
Per AI- the last supplemental draft was in 2023 with no players selected, and the last player to be drafted in a supp draft was in 2019
Sorsby
- Thread starter El Chapo Jr
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Per AI- the last supplemental draft was in 2023 with no players selected, and the last player to be drafted in a supp draft was in 2019
Yeah. The NFL is being too cute by half. They should have just announced there was no supplemental draft and shut the fuck up.
By releasing the denial to the media before Sorsby’s counsel and making public statements, they are attaching challengeable cause.
And considering this attorney has defended the NFL on this very topic, you can rest assured this isn’t some shmuck trying to get some publicity.
They’re undermining their own argument under article 6 by how they’re going about this.
I’m not saying how this goes, but I really think even without the NFLPA’s help in this, if they win at the first level at an expedited hearing which could happen however unlikely, the NFL will find itself in a really bad spot legally.
They should have just held it and no one taken him or colluded without officially colluding like they did with Michael Sam (and understand, I was a huge supporter of his), held the supplemental draft and no one draft him and then it’s over.
Every time the league tries to “send a message” it blows up in their face like Wile E. Coyote.
Maybe the NFL needs to stop gambling with it’s anti-trust exemptions before a real big case comes along and wrecks them.
The league has the sole discretion whether or not to add a supplemental draft, with no players eligible, they arent having one
Pretty simple stuff
True. And if they’d left it at that, they’d be on legal bedrock.
Problem is that they opened the door themselves and Sorsby’s attorney knows the system inside and out including NFL strategy in handling these types of claims which gives him an advantage.
One doesn’t need to subpoena sports journalists to know where they got their stories on it to coincide with the release of the document made public even before notifying the applicant (Sorsby)
Just like in a right to work state, a person can be fired for no reason, but if the employer says, “I’m firing you because I hate *protected class*,” now it’s an illegal actionable firing.
I don’t know if a judge will agree that the NFL opened the doors enough to allow things to go forward, but it begs the question why even turn the knob?
I think a lot of people here in their real lives are encountering issues concerning wills and trusts and running into clauses giving someone "sole discretion" to do something. Some of you may have become painfully aware that "sole discretion" does not allow you to do anything you want.
Back to football, Sorsby's attorney claims, in effect, that he submitted an application without additional information because the NFL said to. The NFL states that they were denying Sorsby's application for, among other things, the lack of supporting information. The NFL asserts sole discretion. The question is was the NFL's exercise of sole discretion "proper"?
Not saying it was or it wasn't. Regardless, lawsuits related to the NFL are often filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Last year that court had the opportunity to examine a commercial contract involving a "sole discretion" clause. One of the things that court said was: "even where a contract grants one party 'sole discretion,' that discretion is not limitless. Instead, it must be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily or irrationally. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing serves to protect the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties and prevent one party from using its discretionary authority to destroy the other party’s benefit under the contract." (Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC).
Regardless of applicability or not, I disagree with the people who claim this is a slam dunk or simple issue.
Back to football, Sorsby's attorney claims, in effect, that he submitted an application without additional information because the NFL said to. The NFL states that they were denying Sorsby's application for, among other things, the lack of supporting information. The NFL asserts sole discretion. The question is was the NFL's exercise of sole discretion "proper"?
Not saying it was or it wasn't. Regardless, lawsuits related to the NFL are often filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Last year that court had the opportunity to examine a commercial contract involving a "sole discretion" clause. One of the things that court said was: "even where a contract grants one party 'sole discretion,' that discretion is not limitless. Instead, it must be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily or irrationally. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing serves to protect the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties and prevent one party from using its discretionary authority to destroy the other party’s benefit under the contract." (Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC).
Regardless of applicability or not, I disagree with the people who claim this is a slam dunk or simple issue.
You arent making sense
He didnt meet their qualifications, end of story
Yup, a lot of arm chair wannabe attorneys in these parts.
We shall see how this ends up
I don’t think anyone’s looking for a blue check bar card, but is it really so crazy to say it’s not as simple as the league would like it to be?
I mean should we go down the list of all the crap the league thought would be simple or non-issues or issues they didn’t have to answer to anybody only for them to be wrong?
Just asking the question isn’t asserting an outcome.
I mean should we go down the list of all the crap the league thought would be simple or non-issues or issues they didn’t have to answer to anybody only for them to be wrong?
Just asking the question isn’t asserting an outcome.
There's a lot in your post, and I'm really not that invested in this topic.
As an example, I will just address one point ... your first one ... which reads:
'The NFL is being too cute by half. They should have just announced there was no supplemental draft and shut the fuck up. By releasing the denial to the media before Sorsby’s counsel and making public statements, they are attaching challengeable cause.'
An application/request was submitted to the NFL. In making a decision (not to hold a supplemental draft), my thought/opinion is that a written response, with some detail/explanation was appropriate; and by putting it out there, the League was being responsive, communicative and transparent.
That just seemed like the responsible thing to me.
As a general comment, I see a lot of legal-takes/opinions in this thread that I don't believe are fully thought-out. NOT Saying that these are "Bad Takes" but almost all assume and/or focus on one aspect, factor or detail to the exclusion of most others, and they are frequently coupled with assumptions.
Opinions are fine ... and this is a Football Forum, so It's All Good.
I just think knowledgeable opinions are more valuable; and without some level of expertise or experience in the areas of Labor, Employment and Anti-trust Law, these are not knowledgeable opinions.
Fair enough.
The problem seems to stem from Sorsby following their own written guidelines and the NFL not following its own guidelines.
Their issue may be the explanation. As I said in the firing analogy, in right to work states, one can be fired while not under contract for no reason, but if a reason is given, it must adhere to the law.
Also, when it comes to the NFL under Gooddell, I tend to not give him,or,his office the benefit of the doubt…ever, so that’s a bias I own