NFL Reopens Investigation Into Giants' Josh Brown CBS/NFL Net See Sharp Drop For "TNF" Roger Goodell Addresses Dip In NFL Ratings MillerCoors Brings Back '80s Madden Ad Google OTT May Have CBS' NFL Games Tannehill Echoes Belichick On Microsoft Tablet Oakland Doesn't Need To Match Raiders Stadium Offer Belichick Says He Is Done With Microsoft Tablets Owners' Opinions On Raiders' Vegas Plan Vary NFL Owners Concerned Over Dip In Ratings
SBD/July 16, 2014/Labor and Agents
Letters To NFLPA Exec Dir Detail DeSean Jackson's Claims Against Rosenhaus
Published July 16, 2014
DETAILING JACKSON'S CASE: In a letter dated June 4, William Quinn, Jackson’s attorney, wrote to Smith, “We therefore ask that the NFLPA either confirm or deny the accuracy of the Rosenhaus’ representations to Mr. Kaplan about the NFLPA’s position on inducements given by Contract Advisors in connection with a player’s decision whether to use his or her services.” Having received no reply, Quinn in a letter dated July 10 goes further, pointing out that the Jackson appeal “asserts that Drew Rosenhaus has undue influence over the NFLPA (and, by extension, Mr. Kaplan) as evidenced by, among other things, the NFLPA’s deliberate refusal to act on abundant compelling evidence that Mr. Rosenhaus routinely flouts his obligations under the NFLPA Regulations, including the anti-inducement prohibition.” The letters and transcript before Kaplan were attached to a court brief Jackson’s attorneys filed yesterday. Quinn concludes the July 10 letter by writing he will take a failure to reply as evidence that the testimony that the NFLPA has exceptions to the inducement rule is false. The NFLPA, which is not a party to the case, could not immediately be reached for comment.
"SCANDALOUS" CLAIMS: Rosenhaus in a previous brief has slammed Jackson’s arguments as “scandalous” and asked the court to sanction the player. Rosenhaus brought the lawsuit in California federal court seeking to enforce the Kaplan decision. Jackson than countersued Rosenhaus. The agent rule prohibits providing or offering money "or any other thing of value to any player prospective player to induce or encourage that player to utilize his/her services.” Kaplan found that there is an exception if the inducement is not considered improper, which he deemed the Rosenhaus loan not to be.