A Cleveland lawyer is sitting in a conference room at a skyscraper in downtown Manhattan, ready to argue about the reputation of a former professional football coach in a hearing that the public should never have known about.
Joe Stafford arrived with a body of evidence that he believes the Browns front office cheated Hugh Jackson during the coaching process and that the team deliberately lost matches for two years, putting Jackson as a fraud , and slandered and slandered him in public comments by prominent members of the organization. Stafford plans to present everything on this day, January 24, 2020, to an appointed referee from the NFL.
Photo illustration by Bryce Wood; Deni Medley / USA TODAY Sports; Jason Miller / Getty Images
What is unfolding are hours of disappointment for all parties involved. Much of the hearing is about whether the details of Jackson’s case will be heard at all. Brown, who denies all of Jackson’s allegations, has a trump card: an agreement signed by Jackson and dated November 5, 2018, just over a week after his dismissal, which exempts the team from all claims in exchange for Jackson collects the rest of the salary you are. In September ’19, when Jackson first requested arbitration, Brown formally filed a motion for dismissal under this exemption agreement. This hearing is Jackson’s only defense, based on the language of his contract – which has become standard in the NFL – requiring football-related disputes with the team to be resolved through arbitration. That’s why he and Stafford are not in open court, but rather here, in the offices of Peter Harvey, the former Attorney General of New Jersey and an elected referee for the NFL.
During the day, Stafford often interrupted his colleague, Brown’s leading lawyer, Richard Millizor. In what appears to be a point of procedural detail, Stafford insists that 38 pages of evidence – his evidence – be attached to the transcript of the hearing, making them easily accessible to the small number of people who may have access to the case in the future. Millisor resisted, and Harvey seemed to lean toward the team, saying the exhibits were part of the recording, even if they weren’t attached to the transcript.
Stafford is not happy and about four hours after the session things reach a boiling point. According to the transcript, Millisor says: “So here’s the worry and I think it’s yours [Stafford’s] the concern is that although the Club does not move to cross out the 38 pages of documents, 95% of this information relates to behavior that will occur before November 5, 2018. Much of this would be extremely detrimental to the club and , to be honest, to Coach Jackson, if it becomes public. “
The NFL’s arbitration system is designed to prevent publicity of details – especially “extremely harmful” ones. But Sports Illustrated reviewed more than 1,000 pages of documents from Jackson’s case, which were part of an application Stafford had prepared to file with the Cuiahoga County General Court to release the league’s arbitration (according to Stafford, Jackson chose not to continue with due to financial reasons and the prospect of a lawsuit in Cleveland). The documents include the 38 pages in question, plus transcripts of this arbitration hearing in January 2020 and a second in March 2020. Through these arbitration proceedings, Jackson is pursuing claims including breach of contract, fraud, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional stress against Brown, such as unspecified compensation and punitive damages are sought.
SI also reviewed internal documents from Brown, Jackson’s contract (which many veteran agents described to SI as extremely unusual), and the exchange of emails between Goodell, Jackson, and others supporting Jackson’s case. In addition, SI interviewed people familiar with Jackson and knowledge of Brown’s internal work – some in the minutes, others in the background – as well as, in context, labor law experts.
Taken together, the report provides an in-depth look at the franchise, which tries to follow the line between “smart recovery” and “full tank” as it tries to bring together classic “football” coaches and scouts with a progressive “analytical” front office. They reveal actions that could be interpreted as violating the League of Competitiveness: In particular, an addendum to Jackson’s contract includes bonus incentives that – although they do not specifically call for Jackson to lose matches – seem to stimulate loss.
Two weeks ago, SI announced that since February, the NFL has been conducting an independent investigation into the actions of the Browns in the 2016 and ’17 seasons. The inquiry came in response to Jackson’s allusion to a loss-making payment scheme in a series of tweets in February, following similar claims by Brian Flores against the Dolphins. While Flores claimed he was offered $ 100,000 in losses from Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, Jackson clarified days later that he had not been explicitly paid for the loss. Flores and Jackson cite racial discrimination as motivation for the actions of their respective former teams.
On Monday, the NFL announced that its investigation had cleared Brown of any wrongdoing. A letter signed by Roger Goodell and sent to Browns owner Jimmy Haslam (with Jackson copied) states that “none of Jackson’s allegations have been substantiated” and that investigators “have found no evidence that Browns” tanked “In a game or that someone like property, the football department or the coaching staff encouraged losses or discouraged victory to improve the club’s position in the draft. […] Instead, the evidence shows that the club is acting fairly to develop and implement a long-term plan to build and maintain a successful team and win every game it plays. “
The NFL press release notes that “While Coach Jackson initially agreed to meet with investigators, he eventually did not. In particular, Jackson’s camp had extensive correspondence with White’s firm in March. Zoom’s original interview with investigators was scheduled for March 17, but Jackson canceled to consult a lawyer first. On March 29, Jackson’s camp set out the conditions for his participation: The full scope of the investigation should be presented to Jackson in writing, for which Jackson will sign a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement; denials, acquittals, and compensation for Jackson, his attorneys, and Kimberly Dimmert, head of his foundation; and reimbursement of legal fees and any other expenses incurred. White responded by email that the NFL does not exempt, indemnify or pay witness fees and cannot disclose details of ongoing third-party investigations. A April 12 letter from Jackson’s lawyer, David Lisko of Holland & Knight, echoing Jackson’s terms, was not answered. (White declined to comment.)
A Browns spokesman declined to provide recorded answers to a list of SI questions or to make owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam or Chief Strategic Officer Paul DePodesta available for interviews. Millisor also declined an interview request. Following the NFL investigation, a team spokesman said: “We appreciate the independent investigation led by Mary Joe White and the Debevoise team, which concludes these allegations that Hugh Jackson publicly denied shortly after they were made and that we all know incorrect. As we said earlier, we welcomed this investigation because the integrity of our game is something that should not be taken lightly, and an independent review was crucial in reaching a conclusion on this issue. “
Sashi Brown, Cleveland’s executive vice president and general manager from 2016 to 2017 and now president of the Ravens team, through a team spokesperson, declined an interview request or answered a list of questions provided by SI.
An NFL spokesman also declined to comment on the story.
Jackson, citing the release agreement, which prevents him from speaking publicly about his complaint, declined to answer SI’s questions, but said before the NFL released his findings: “Two years ago, I tried to do it the right way. , through the rules and the establishment of the National Football League, to ask them to investigate the Cleveland Browns for all the allegations I made. Then why is an investigation starting now? “
Scroll to Continue
Jackson’s accidental allegations immediately after the news of Flores’ case led many to see him as an unreliable narrator – and to be sure, his time in Cleveland was much more complicated, his case far more nuanced than his lawyer’s. .
First of all, the case of Jackson is a study of a team that pushed like no other team when it comes to recovery, who pays what price when it goes horribly wrong, and how the league reacts when a head coach takes over his former team.
Jackson made it 3-36-1 during his tenure in Cleveland.
LEBRECHTMEDIA / Sports Illustrated
The most unusual aspect of Jackson’s contract does not actually appear in the contract itself. This is the package of incentives that is specified in the contract, but is not set out in detail. The specific incentives that would earn Jackson’s bonus money appear only in a separate internal Browns document entitled The Four-Year Plan, a pamphlet that also outlines the organization’s overall philosophy and includes specific protocols on how the team will work. (SI fully reviewed Jackson’s contract, but had access only to excerpts from the Four-Year Plan.)
Article 3 of Jackson’s contract sets out his compensation: $ 4.75 million a year, plus those incentives. The last line of Article 3 reads: “In addition to the salary, the staff member shall …
Add Comment