“After consulting with the union, I told the NFL that I will attend the standard meeting with the Commissioner prior to possible imposition of discipline, as has been the long-term practice under the CBA, but I wouldn’t participate in a newly created and non-collectively bargained pre-discipline ‘hearing’ that would include outside people I don’t know and who would have roles in the process that the NFL wouldn’t disclose. At this point, I’ve resolved my matter in the criminal court; I’ve worked to make amends for what I’ve done; I’ve missed most of the season, and I stand ready to be candid and forthcoming with Mr. Goodell about what happened. However, I will not allow the NFL to impose a new process of discipline on me, ignore the CBA, ignore the deal they agreed to with me, and behave without fairness or accountability. The process they are pushing is arbitrary, inconsistent, and contrary to what they agreed to do, and for those reasons, I never agreed to the hearing.
[italics added] Below, a photo of the Wilf ownership brothers; Fairness Wilf on the right; Accountability Wilf on the left:
So, if Roger Goodell and henchmen are truly so image-counscious in wanting jobsite punishments for those tarnishing the goodwill and image of the business venture known as "NFL" then what's the league's proper dole of [delayed] punishment for THIS pile of goodwill and image impact and implication?
Were one to think good Mr. Goodell has a double standard would that entail any degree of surprise? There is a saying about sauce for goose and gander, but that's for the birds, not having a place within relations between pro-sports ownership and labor.
Reader comments welcome - Which offends the conscience more, one single instance of over vigorous spanking in the way a player was spanked as a growing child; or an ongoing mega fraud by persons of great wealth and learning, against partners to whom fiduciary duties clearly were owed but wilfully ignored?
UPDATE: Surely ex post facto alteration of rules and dimensions of imposing a sanction against bad deeds (by players vs. wilfully transgressing ownership) does not trouble good Mr. Goodell, as is clear per Strib reporting of nary a league concern over the lawful propriety of ex post facto impositions:
The NFL will judge Peterson under its revamped personal conduct policy, which calls for players involved in domestic violence to be suspended for six games. The new policy was announced by Goodell in August; the injury to Peterson’s son occurred in May. Peterson has been paid while absent from action.
So should we presume Goodell and henchmen will fairly formulate a punishment formula for ownership transgressions, and then impose it ex post facto against judicially determined clear abuse and impropriety? By ownership persons? Should we hold our breath waiting?
If Peterson had wilfully cheated business partners per a judgment for over a hundred million bucks, would he have without interruption toted the ball for the Wilf brothers? The league showing only a happy face reaction to an such stuff? Likely so? Or not?
FURTHER UPDATE: Jimmy Haslam. And, league policy.