Sources: No settlement before ruling
 

There will be no settlement between New Orleans Saints suspended linebacker Jonathan Vilma and the NFL before a judge rules on the temporary restraining order, sources familiar with the case told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Wednesday. Some believe there's a "good chance" U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan will issue a decision on the TRO on Friday or shortly thereafter, the sources told Schefter. An NFL investigation found that the New Orleans Saints operated a bounty system rewarding between 22 and 27 players for hard hits and injuring opposing players.

The judge's decision also would impact the other three suspended players -- Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove -- in the wake of their alleged roles in what the NFL says were illegal bounties used by the Saints against opposing players. Vilma and seven witnesses testified in New Orleans last month that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell got his facts wrong in the bounty scandal, saying league investigators "misconstrued" evidence gathered in their investigation and incorrectly concluded that the Saints had a bounty program.

Vilma asked Berrigan to impose a TRO against the NFL while his lawsuit against Goodell proceeds. Vilma's suit accuses the commissioner of defamation and also asks Berrigan to overturn permanently Goodell's decision to suspend him for the entire 2012 season. NFL attorneys did not attempt to challenge testimony denying the existence of a bounty program. Rather, they argued the real question in Vilma's case was whether the federal courts had jurisdiction to overturn a process that was collectively bargained. After Vilma's testimony, Berrigan said Goodell's contention that players were being punished for actions that occurred not on the field, but in meeting rooms and locker rooms, "borders on ridiculous," and cited it as one of several examples of "slicing the salami very thin."The NFL last week offered to reduce Vilma's suspension to eight games as part of ongoing settlement talks involving the league, the NFL Players Association and legal representatives for the four players, according to sources familiar with the discussions.The league's offer was conditional upon Vilma dropping a civil lawsuit charging Goodell with defamation of character, sources said.
The NFL, in a statement released Monday morning, denied that Vilma was offered a settlement deal.

Information from ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, ESPN's Ed Werder and the Associated Press was used in this report.

Sources -- No Jonathan Vilma, NFL settlement before judge's ruling on temporary restraining order - ESPN

No settlement - only RETRIBUTION!!!

Looks like the this judge ain't having none of the NFL bull. Time to get some facts straight. Goodell doesn't want this defamation of character thing to continue. Thats why he tried to throw Jon Vilma a bone.

And Vilma should have taken that bone and run with it.

Its beyond the facts at this point... beyond evidence.

Taken at FACE VALUE, if Vilma says "I did not do anything they say I did"... But Sean Payton, Micky Loomis, and Greg Williams have already said "you caught us, sorry".... I have trouble, a lot of trouble, seeing that nothing has happened.

No evidence in the courtroom only testimony, if you put those three on the stand to explain what they apologized for and they state they apologized for doing what they shouldn't have, it annihilates Vilmas credibility.

I do not like it, but that's how I see it.

NOW a flip side.. "IF" the NFL did make an offer to Vilma and the other three to reduce suspensions, and they can show the Judge a letter sent to Vilma's lawyer proving they did... Doesn't that undermined the stance that Goodell punished "too harshly", and over stepped his boundaries? The CBA outlines his boundaries but not to what extent...

Or...

if the three get on the stand and testify that they only went along with the confessions because they were given the choices, confess and accept your suspensions or deny and be banned from the NFL. That would support Vilma's claim that appeals were pointless.

Exactly!! I truly believe the coach's did not think what they were doing was a "Bounty Scheme". At least Payton and Loomis anyway. Did GW hand out the envelopes in front of SP and ML? I doubt it. Go read ML and SP apology again. No where does it say they are apologizing for a Bounty Scheme. They apologized for letting a "program" happen under there watch. They are managers just like I am. If something happens in my store, it's my responsibility. Whether I knew anything about it or did anything about it, it still falls on my shoulders. Same thing with ML and SP.

Whose sources?

Re: Sources: No settlement before ruling
 

Unless he has said or admitted something privately to Goodell that we are not privy to, Sean Payton has said no such thing. He has NOT admitted to a bounty, or "lying" to Goodell, or to even doing anything wrong. Unless I'm mistaken, Payton didn't even admit to pay-for-performance, only Williams did.

He said, quote, I am sorry for what happened and, as head coach, take full responsibility.

If you read it carefully, he only refers to "what happened," which could mean a number of things -- the flawed Bounty investigation itself, the suspensions, the bad publicity for Benson, the "tarnishing of the shield," or the negative outcome of the whole darn thing. It does NOT mean "you caught me," "the NFL's evidence is true" or that he ever admitted to what Goodell said he did, not AT ALL. He only said he was sorry that "what happened" happened.

When I first read it, I immediately took it to mean that Payton was apologizing for the WHOLE MESS, whether innocent or guilty, and was going out of his way with his words to NOT admit guilt. But that it happened on his watch. Admitting responsibility is not the same thing as admitting guilt.

Unless of course he admitted something privately to Goodell that we don't know about, which would be a whole other ball of wax, and I kind of doubt he did since we would have heard about it.