Statement from the Panthers

[Pox 08]

His last suspension earned him $13 mil, not sure how unfair that was for him....

 

It is if he is aware he only has a brief window to play in the NFL.    Franchise tags are like contract years for players..  it's their chance to go out there for one final year with that one team,  and showcase their talent,  in hopes of receiving a mega contract and break the bank with some other team.    The guy will probably lose way more than $13M in his next contract,  by being punished,  but not being punished loophole of the commish list..  ..compared to if he was never put on the list and actually allowed to play until the final verdict came in.

 

[teeray]

What are they going to suspend him for?

Excessive tweeting and lack of contrition for a charge that was dismissed?

[tiger7_88]

It's unfair to Hardy if he is suspended again.

 

I'm sure the commissioner and owners are salivating at the opportunity for the NFLPA to take the NFL to court in defense of a guy accused of domestic violence who settled out-of-court with the alleged victim.

 

Commish/Owners: "See! See!  We're serious about this stuff and its obvious that the union and the players are not!"

 

Throw up the soft ball and hit it out of the park.

[Mr. Scot]

It was a 'paid' suspension. He wasn't allowed to participate with the team just as a normal suspension.

A regular suspension forbids a guy from even being around the team.

Hardy wasn't prohibited from being on the facilities or even being at games to cheer teammates on.

He just didn't come around.

[Gin and Juice]

It is if he is aware he only has a brief window to play in the NFL. Franchise tags are like contract years for players.. it's their chance to go out there for one final year with that one team, and showcase their talent, in hopes of receiving a mega contract and break the bank with some other team. The guy will probably lose way more than $13M in his next contract, by being punished, but not being punished loophole of the commish list.. ..compared to if he was never put on the list and actually allowed to play until the final verdict came in.

Franchise tag only benefits the team! It's a players worst nightmare

[tiger7_88]

Hmmm.....no conviction, unknown civil settlement that could have been as simple as "I'm sorry." Nor does the NFL have the right to know.

 

 

Neither does Hardy have the "right" to play in the NFL.

[Mr. Scot]

What are they going to suspend him for?

Excessive tweeting and lack of contrition for a charge that was dismissed?

'Conduct detrimental' perhaps.

I don't think it happens myself, but it's possible.

[teeray]

I'm sure the commissioner and owners are salivating at the opportunity for the NFLPA to take the NFL to court in defense of a guy accused of domestic violence who settled out-of-court with the alleged victim.

Commish/Owners: "See! See! We're serious about this stuff and its obvious that the union and the players are not!"

Throw up the soft ball and hit it out of the park.

They would have to prove there even was a settlement first. Then they would have to argue thay a settlement is an admission of guilt (which it is not), and then would have to say that sitting out 15 games and possibly costing Hardy millions of dollars and usinf his face as a poster child for domestic abuse, only to have charged dropped was not a reasonable punishment.

It would probably be a losing argument. If DA can't get Holder NFL likely won't, I doubt there will be any suspension.

[Anybodyhome]

I would think the NFLPA would have something to say about a six game suspension under a policy that was adopted AFTER Hardy's incident occurred and absent a conviction.

I would think a two game suspension (ala Ray Rice) would be appropriate.

 

Greg Hardy is out of football longer than either Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson... and he wasn't convicted.

 

So, go ahead Hardy haters, try to explain that logic to me.

[teeray]

'Conduct detrimental' perhaps.

I don't think it happens myself, but it's possible.

You have to prove his conduct was detrimental.

Their defense can't just be " he dated a crazy woman"

[Gin and Juice]

I'm sure the commissioner and owners are salivating at the opportunity for the NFLPA to take the NFL to court in defense of a guy accused of domestic violence who settled out-of-court with the alleged victim.

Commish/Owners: "See! See! We're serious about this stuff and its obvious that the union and the players are not!"

Throw up the soft ball and hit it out of the park.

The settlement can not be viewed by the NFL unless Hardy and Holder agree to share. Settlements are sealed if formal! Other than that, she may have just not shown up and it's common sense that something happened to settle the case, which we and the NFL will never know about

[tiger7_88]

They would have to prove there even was a settlement first.

 

Proving there was a settlement is easy.  They would have to be filed within the civil court system.  Unless, of course, Hardy and his lawyers chose to settle with her person-to-person which, of course, leaves him open to further pressure/blackmail by Ms. Holder in the future.

 

Getting the TERMS of the settlement to be revealed?  That is another story.

[tiger7_88]

The settlement can not be viewed by the NFL unless Hardy and Holder agree to share. Settlements are sealed if formal! Other than that, she may have just not shown up and it's common sense that something happened to settle the case, which we and the NFL will never know about

 

Oh absolutely.

 

And like any other employer whose employment decision depends on background information, the NFL can tell Hardy and his lawyers to reveal to them the terms of that settlement or Mr. Hardy has the right to become unemployed.

[Gin and Juice]

Neither does Hardy have the "right" to play in the NFL.

Not allowing him to play while having fulfilled his obligation on conduct would be discrimination.

NFL trying to pry out info that is a sealed judicial document is a violation of rights