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 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 slam dunk or simple issue.