NFL notebook: Salary cap collusion lawsuit kept alive
• A players' union lawsuit accusing NFL team owners of setting a secret salary cap in 2010 was kept alive by a federal appeals court Friday. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed a federal judge's order that had rejected NFL Players Association's collusion claim. The three-judge appeals court panel that heard oral arguments in January disagreed with U.S. District Judge David Doty on one of the NFLPA's two arguments for pursuing damages despite the 2011 collective bargaining agreement that was supposed to settle such lawsuits. The appeals court sent the case back to Doty's jurisdiction in Minneapolis for further proceedings.
• Buffalo Sabres owners Terry and Kim Pegula said they have a strong desire to see the Bills stay in Buffalo, and aren't ruling out making a bid to buy the franchise. The Pegulas declined to go into further detail of their intentions in a statement released by the NHL team Friday. The statement was released a day after a person familiar with the sale process told the Associated Press the Pegulas were among prospective buyers who received a non-disclosure agreement and background on the Bills from a law firm representing late owner Ralph Wilson's estate.
• He played far more games with the Chicago Bears than Brian Urlacher and more games with the team than Dick Butkus and Jim McMahon combined. Long snapper Patrick Mannelly retired after playing more years and more games with the Bears than any player in team history. In his 16 years and 245 games with the team, Mannelly snapped the ball for extra points, punts and field goals 2,282 times.
•Former NFL players Tommie Harris and Eric Bassey are the first owners of a team in the new FXFL developmental league. The Fall Experimental Football League, which has no affiliation with the NFL, plans to play six games in October and November in six U.S. cities.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.