Peep the video with Skip Bayless commenting:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/this...anning-over-alleged-phony-memorabilia-racket/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/this...anning-over-alleged-phony-memorabilia-racket/
NFL Legal: Eli Manning Allegedly Involved in Scheme to Sell Fake Game-Worn Memorabilia
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
At least he stood for the national anthem.
"Eli did what?!? Noooo... tell me more!"
Steiner CEO hopes sports memorabilia he received from Eli Manning is legitimate
Former Eli Manning's teammate Antonio Pierce shares his perspective on why he doesn't think Manning did anything wrong with his game-worn memorabilia. (1:42)
A memorabilia dealer who is involved in the lawsuit alleging that the New York Giants and quarterback Eli Manning were complicit in passing off fake game-used memorabilia took to social media to explain where his company currently stands.
Brandon Steiner of Steiner Sports appeared on Facebook Live on Monday afternoon to say he's hoping the items Manning gave to him and presented as game-used, that he then sold, were legitimate, but he isn't sure at this time.
"When Eli Manning walks into your office and he says, 'These are my game-used items,' then I'd like to think that I can believe that," Steiner said.
Last week, an attorney for the plaintiffs -- collectors Eric Inselberg, Michael Jakab and Sean Godown -- introduced an email sent by Manning on April 27, 2010, to Giants equipment manager Joe Skiba, in which Manning asked for "two helmets that can pass as game-used" for his Steiner memorabilia deal.
Steiner said Monday his company has had a deal with Manning since his 2003 rookie season and that for a period of about five years, Manning threw in two to three game-used items per season as part of a bonus to his contract.
"It's probably why it was a bit of an afterthought for Eli to get us those items when you read some of those emails," Steiner told the audience watching him at his desk on Monday.
Steiner later told ESPN he was out of the country when the story broke and had not yet had a chance to speak to Manning.
"The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday," McCarter & English, the law firm representing the Giants in the case, said in a statement issued last week. "The email predates any litigation, and there was no legal obligation to store it on the Giants server. Eli Manning is well-known for his integrity, and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character."
"When Eli Manning walks into your office and he says, 'These are my game-used items,' then I'd like to think that I can believe that," Steiner Sports CEO Brandon Steiner said of the items the Giants QB, above, offered up to him as game-used. Matthew Emmons/USA TODAY Sports
When asked by a viewer why he didn't sever his deal with the Giants quarterback, Steiner said he firmly was giving Manning the benefit of the doubt but still didn't have the answers.
"First of all, we haven't gotten all the facts and we don't know if Eli has done anything wrong," Steiner said. "Secondly, I think we are all better than our worst mistake. We've had a 14-year relationship with a guy that's amazing to us. He has been a great partner, he has been a friend and he has been amazing to our customers in every sense of the word. I'm not a runner -- you've seen me with Ray Rice, you've seen me with a lot of other players, guys that have been with us. We're going to do everything we can to support those players when the waters get a little rocky."
Steiner had yet to research what ultimately became of the helmets that Manning presented him and to whom, if anyone, the helmets were sold. Steiner said that prior to any conclusive findings, anyone who bought one of the dozen or so game-used Manning items from him over the years could get a complete refund now.
"This is troublesome to me," Steiner said. "Yes, I lose sleep because I see this. There's an accusation out there that something we thought was 100 percent real was in question."
Steiner admits that the chain of custody isn't perfect with game-used items.
"A lot of times, we're not in the locker room, and there are a lot of leagues and teams that don't have authentication programs that really secure product," he said.
One of the methods Steiner has used for authentication is matching what is received with photos from the game, though the lawsuit alleges that the Giants' equipment manager is very aware of markings on jerseys and helmets.
A trial in Bergen County (New Jersey) Superior Court is scheduled to begin on Sept. 25.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...s-memorabilia-received-eli-manning-legitimate
Former Eli Manning's teammate Antonio Pierce shares his perspective on why he doesn't think Manning did anything wrong with his game-worn memorabilia. (1:42)
A memorabilia dealer who is involved in the lawsuit alleging that the New York Giants and quarterback Eli Manning were complicit in passing off fake game-used memorabilia took to social media to explain where his company currently stands.
Brandon Steiner of Steiner Sports appeared on Facebook Live on Monday afternoon to say he's hoping the items Manning gave to him and presented as game-used, that he then sold, were legitimate, but he isn't sure at this time.
"When Eli Manning walks into your office and he says, 'These are my game-used items,' then I'd like to think that I can believe that," Steiner said.
Last week, an attorney for the plaintiffs -- collectors Eric Inselberg, Michael Jakab and Sean Godown -- introduced an email sent by Manning on April 27, 2010, to Giants equipment manager Joe Skiba, in which Manning asked for "two helmets that can pass as game-used" for his Steiner memorabilia deal.
Steiner said Monday his company has had a deal with Manning since his 2003 rookie season and that for a period of about five years, Manning threw in two to three game-used items per season as part of a bonus to his contract.
"It's probably why it was a bit of an afterthought for Eli to get us those items when you read some of those emails," Steiner told the audience watching him at his desk on Monday.
Steiner later told ESPN he was out of the country when the story broke and had not yet had a chance to speak to Manning.
"The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday," McCarter & English, the law firm representing the Giants in the case, said in a statement issued last week. "The email predates any litigation, and there was no legal obligation to store it on the Giants server. Eli Manning is well-known for his integrity, and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character."
"When Eli Manning walks into your office and he says, 'These are my game-used items,' then I'd like to think that I can believe that," Steiner Sports CEO Brandon Steiner said of the items the Giants QB, above, offered up to him as game-used. Matthew Emmons/USA TODAY Sports
When asked by a viewer why he didn't sever his deal with the Giants quarterback, Steiner said he firmly was giving Manning the benefit of the doubt but still didn't have the answers.
"First of all, we haven't gotten all the facts and we don't know if Eli has done anything wrong," Steiner said. "Secondly, I think we are all better than our worst mistake. We've had a 14-year relationship with a guy that's amazing to us. He has been a great partner, he has been a friend and he has been amazing to our customers in every sense of the word. I'm not a runner -- you've seen me with Ray Rice, you've seen me with a lot of other players, guys that have been with us. We're going to do everything we can to support those players when the waters get a little rocky."
Steiner had yet to research what ultimately became of the helmets that Manning presented him and to whom, if anyone, the helmets were sold. Steiner said that prior to any conclusive findings, anyone who bought one of the dozen or so game-used Manning items from him over the years could get a complete refund now.
"This is troublesome to me," Steiner said. "Yes, I lose sleep because I see this. There's an accusation out there that something we thought was 100 percent real was in question."
Steiner admits that the chain of custody isn't perfect with game-used items.
"A lot of times, we're not in the locker room, and there are a lot of leagues and teams that don't have authentication programs that really secure product," he said.
One of the methods Steiner has used for authentication is matching what is received with photos from the game, though the lawsuit alleges that the Giants' equipment manager is very aware of markings on jerseys and helmets.
A trial in Bergen County (New Jersey) Superior Court is scheduled to begin on Sept. 25.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...s-memorabilia-received-eli-manning-legitimate
this seems rehearsed...
What's next for the Giants and Eli Manning amidst memorabilia scandal?
Mute
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
7:56 | NFL
Inside the search for Tom Brady's stolen Super Bowl jersey
QUICKLY
Friday April 14th, 2017
Do you own or have you bought for someone else an authentic Eli Manning “game-used” jersey or helmet?
If you have, you might want to see if your receipt still lets you return it.
Kill Fleas and Ticks Fast - Long-Lasting Easy Chewable
www.fleaandtickfacts.com
Choose Tasty Chewable Flea & Tick Protection For Your Dog. Learn More Now!
As first reported by New York Post writers Kaja Whitehouse and Bruce Golding, new court papers contain copies of emails allegedly sent by Manning seven years ago that suggest the Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLVI Most Valuable Player intentionally misrepresented the authenticity of equipment he provided Steiner Sports Memorabilia as part of a deal he had with the company. Steiner Sports offers a wide selection of memorabilia to consumers and guarantees the authenticity of items it sells.
Assuming the accuracy of the court papers filed, a then 29-year-old Manning emailed Giants equipment manager Joseph Skiba on Apr. 27, 2010 with a simple request: provide Manning with “two helmets that can pass as game-used.” Manning made the request at the behest of his marketing agent, Alan Zucker, who had been contacted by Steiner Sports about its desire for two “game-used” helmets and jerseys. A few days later, Skiba appeared to admit in an email to sports collector Eric Inselberg that the “game-used” jersey and helmet he distributed were “bs” since Manning didn’t want to share actual game-used jerseys.
The integrity of football jerseys has both economic and legal significance
On the surface, whether equipment attributed to Manning was actually “game-used” or merely scuffed up to appear as game-used might not seem like a big deal. After all, the equipment is fundamentally the same whether it was used in a game or not.
But that thinking ignores the importance of memorabilia categorization and the damage that can be done to a collector’s reputation if he or she is viewed as selling fraudulent goods.
In the sports memorabilia world, a “game-used” or “game-worn” jersey means something altogether different from a “game-issued” jersey or an “authentic” jersey, and it has a greater value, too. A game-used or game-worn jersey is a jersey that was worn in an actual game. Such a jersey can have considerable value if worn by a star player in a key game. The recent controversy involving Tom Brady’s stolen Super Bowl jerseys evidences that point: some collectors estimate that the Brady Super Bowl jerseys are worth over $500,000. This is because they were actually worn by Brady in his Super Bowl victories, which makes them unique, scarce and historic. A “game-issued” jersey is identical to a game-used jersey and was capable of being worn by a player in a game. It is different, however, because it wasn’t actually worn by the player in that game, and thus has less historic value. As to an “authentic” jersey, it is one that consumers can buy in stores, and is often signed by the player. A framed Eli Manning signed jersey can be bought for around $1,000 on steinersports.com.
Manning’s apparent admission has been made public as part of a lawsuit that began in 2015 and continues to this day. A group of collectors led by Inselberg sued Manning, Giants owner John Mara, Steiner Sports and others in a New Jersey Superior Court. The plaintiffs, who are represented by attorney Brian Brook of Clinton Brook & Peed, contend that Manning was part of a racketeering scheme to distribute and sell fraudulent memorabilia. The alleged fraud reflects inauthentic equipment being marketed under false pretenses. Racketeering is a serious allegation. It requires proof that two or more persons conspired to commit an unlawful act as a method of obtaining illegally derived income. Whether such proof can be proven in this case remains to be seen.
The plaintiffs also insist that Manning and his co-defendants engaged in malicious prosecution. The Giants did so, Inselberg asserts, by implicating Inselberg in wrongful activity when the FBI investigated Inselberg and others for memorabilia fraud in 2010. This is also a serious allegation since a grand jury would indict Inselberg on four counts mail fraud in 2012. Federal prosecutors, however, dismissed the case a year later. Inselberg insists that the defendants pinned the blame for fake memorabilia on Inselberg in order to escape their own criminal prosecution for distributing fraudulent items.
The lawsuit contains still other claims, including that the defendants allegedly libeled Inselberg as a peddler of false goods. Further, the Inselberg insists, the defendants interfered with Inselberg’s capacity to do business by—in Inselberg’s view—falsely implicating him in wrongdoing. In essence, Inselberg reasons, if he is viewed as selling fake goods no one will buy from him.
Getty Images
This is a civil, not criminal, controversy
To be clear, although the allegations in Inselberg’s lawsuit portray Manning and his Giants co-defendants as having committed criminal acts, none were charged with any crimes. There is also no known evidence that they were investigated for criminal conduct.
In addition, the defendants almost certainly won’t be charged with crimes over this memorabilia controversy going forward. For one, if they were going to be charged, they likely would have already been charged: the FBI investigated this matter years ago. Second, the relevant statute of limitations for plausibly related criminal charges have likely expired by this point. In New Jersey and New York, for example, most crimes must be charged within five years or six years, respectively, or they are time-barred. The same is generally true for the kinds of federal charges that would be in play in this type of situation.
The Giants respond. How might the NFL respond post-Deflategate?
The Giants tweeted a response Thursday night with a quote attributed to a spokesperson for the team’s attorney: “The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday . . . Eli Manning is well known for his integrity and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character.”
It remains to be seen if the defendants provide other materials that might add meaningful context. Such context could exculpate Manning or at least mitigate the reputational impact of his email to Skiba.
Monthly Tick Medicine - Tasty Chewables For Dogs
Fast and Lasting Action Against Ticks to Protect Your Dog All Month. Learn More! www.fleaandtickfacts.com
It is a little surprising, however, that Manning would not have settled the lawsuit before disclosing his email in pretrial discovery. Put simply, the email—at least as it is portrayed in the court filing—makes Manning seem dishonest. Along those lines, even if Manning ultimately defeats Inselberg in court, it could prove to be a pyrrhic victory.
For one, Manning’s reputation is damaged by even an insinuation that he would let consumers—and presumably his fans—buy misrepresented memorabilia that is associated with his name. Steiner Sports is in the business of selling memorabilia, including to consumers. There’s a good chance that a consumer interested in buying a Manning game jersey is one of his fans or has a child who is a fan.
Second, the NFL is surely following the story with keen interest. Depending on subsequent developments, the league and commissioner Roger Goodell could take action against both Manning and the Giants. As we know, the NFL waged a long legal battle against Tom Brady over the integrity of football equipment and the league severely punished the Patriots, too.
The NFL could distinguish Deflategate from what might be called “Memorabiliagate” on grounds that the league’s claims against Brady and the Patriots were raised because air pressure in game footballs impacts competition in games whereas Manning and the Giants’ alleged equipment misconduct had no impact on competition in games. Setting aside the fact that many neutral scientists, including MIT Professor John Leonard, contend the NFL’s claims in Deflategate were scientifically implausible, one might question the persuasiveness of such a distinction. After all, whether consumers have confidence that they are buying accurately marketed official NFL products goes directly to the integrity of the league.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/04/13/n...iner-sports-memorabilia-scandal-roger-goodell
Mute
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
7:56 | NFL
Inside the search for Tom Brady's stolen Super Bowl jersey
QUICKLY
- Eli Manning and the New York Giants have apparently admitted to duping a memorabilia company. SI.com's legal expert examines the potential civil and NFL ramifications.
Friday April 14th, 2017
Do you own or have you bought for someone else an authentic Eli Manning “game-used” jersey or helmet?
If you have, you might want to see if your receipt still lets you return it.
Kill Fleas and Ticks Fast - Long-Lasting Easy Chewable
www.fleaandtickfacts.com
Choose Tasty Chewable Flea & Tick Protection For Your Dog. Learn More Now!
As first reported by New York Post writers Kaja Whitehouse and Bruce Golding, new court papers contain copies of emails allegedly sent by Manning seven years ago that suggest the Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLVI Most Valuable Player intentionally misrepresented the authenticity of equipment he provided Steiner Sports Memorabilia as part of a deal he had with the company. Steiner Sports offers a wide selection of memorabilia to consumers and guarantees the authenticity of items it sells.
Assuming the accuracy of the court papers filed, a then 29-year-old Manning emailed Giants equipment manager Joseph Skiba on Apr. 27, 2010 with a simple request: provide Manning with “two helmets that can pass as game-used.” Manning made the request at the behest of his marketing agent, Alan Zucker, who had been contacted by Steiner Sports about its desire for two “game-used” helmets and jerseys. A few days later, Skiba appeared to admit in an email to sports collector Eric Inselberg that the “game-used” jersey and helmet he distributed were “bs” since Manning didn’t want to share actual game-used jerseys.
The integrity of football jerseys has both economic and legal significance
On the surface, whether equipment attributed to Manning was actually “game-used” or merely scuffed up to appear as game-used might not seem like a big deal. After all, the equipment is fundamentally the same whether it was used in a game or not.
But that thinking ignores the importance of memorabilia categorization and the damage that can be done to a collector’s reputation if he or she is viewed as selling fraudulent goods.
In the sports memorabilia world, a “game-used” or “game-worn” jersey means something altogether different from a “game-issued” jersey or an “authentic” jersey, and it has a greater value, too. A game-used or game-worn jersey is a jersey that was worn in an actual game. Such a jersey can have considerable value if worn by a star player in a key game. The recent controversy involving Tom Brady’s stolen Super Bowl jerseys evidences that point: some collectors estimate that the Brady Super Bowl jerseys are worth over $500,000. This is because they were actually worn by Brady in his Super Bowl victories, which makes them unique, scarce and historic. A “game-issued” jersey is identical to a game-used jersey and was capable of being worn by a player in a game. It is different, however, because it wasn’t actually worn by the player in that game, and thus has less historic value. As to an “authentic” jersey, it is one that consumers can buy in stores, and is often signed by the player. A framed Eli Manning signed jersey can be bought for around $1,000 on steinersports.com.
Manning’s apparent admission has been made public as part of a lawsuit that began in 2015 and continues to this day. A group of collectors led by Inselberg sued Manning, Giants owner John Mara, Steiner Sports and others in a New Jersey Superior Court. The plaintiffs, who are represented by attorney Brian Brook of Clinton Brook & Peed, contend that Manning was part of a racketeering scheme to distribute and sell fraudulent memorabilia. The alleged fraud reflects inauthentic equipment being marketed under false pretenses. Racketeering is a serious allegation. It requires proof that two or more persons conspired to commit an unlawful act as a method of obtaining illegally derived income. Whether such proof can be proven in this case remains to be seen.
The plaintiffs also insist that Manning and his co-defendants engaged in malicious prosecution. The Giants did so, Inselberg asserts, by implicating Inselberg in wrongful activity when the FBI investigated Inselberg and others for memorabilia fraud in 2010. This is also a serious allegation since a grand jury would indict Inselberg on four counts mail fraud in 2012. Federal prosecutors, however, dismissed the case a year later. Inselberg insists that the defendants pinned the blame for fake memorabilia on Inselberg in order to escape their own criminal prosecution for distributing fraudulent items.
The lawsuit contains still other claims, including that the defendants allegedly libeled Inselberg as a peddler of false goods. Further, the Inselberg insists, the defendants interfered with Inselberg’s capacity to do business by—in Inselberg’s view—falsely implicating him in wrongdoing. In essence, Inselberg reasons, if he is viewed as selling fake goods no one will buy from him.
Getty Images
This is a civil, not criminal, controversy
To be clear, although the allegations in Inselberg’s lawsuit portray Manning and his Giants co-defendants as having committed criminal acts, none were charged with any crimes. There is also no known evidence that they were investigated for criminal conduct.
In addition, the defendants almost certainly won’t be charged with crimes over this memorabilia controversy going forward. For one, if they were going to be charged, they likely would have already been charged: the FBI investigated this matter years ago. Second, the relevant statute of limitations for plausibly related criminal charges have likely expired by this point. In New Jersey and New York, for example, most crimes must be charged within five years or six years, respectively, or they are time-barred. The same is generally true for the kinds of federal charges that would be in play in this type of situation.
The Giants respond. How might the NFL respond post-Deflategate?
The Giants tweeted a response Thursday night with a quote attributed to a spokesperson for the team’s attorney: “The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday . . . Eli Manning is well known for his integrity and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character.”
It remains to be seen if the defendants provide other materials that might add meaningful context. Such context could exculpate Manning or at least mitigate the reputational impact of his email to Skiba.
Monthly Tick Medicine - Tasty Chewables For Dogs
Fast and Lasting Action Against Ticks to Protect Your Dog All Month. Learn More! www.fleaandtickfacts.com
It is a little surprising, however, that Manning would not have settled the lawsuit before disclosing his email in pretrial discovery. Put simply, the email—at least as it is portrayed in the court filing—makes Manning seem dishonest. Along those lines, even if Manning ultimately defeats Inselberg in court, it could prove to be a pyrrhic victory.
For one, Manning’s reputation is damaged by even an insinuation that he would let consumers—and presumably his fans—buy misrepresented memorabilia that is associated with his name. Steiner Sports is in the business of selling memorabilia, including to consumers. There’s a good chance that a consumer interested in buying a Manning game jersey is one of his fans or has a child who is a fan.
Second, the NFL is surely following the story with keen interest. Depending on subsequent developments, the league and commissioner Roger Goodell could take action against both Manning and the Giants. As we know, the NFL waged a long legal battle against Tom Brady over the integrity of football equipment and the league severely punished the Patriots, too.
The NFL could distinguish Deflategate from what might be called “Memorabiliagate” on grounds that the league’s claims against Brady and the Patriots were raised because air pressure in game footballs impacts competition in games whereas Manning and the Giants’ alleged equipment misconduct had no impact on competition in games. Setting aside the fact that many neutral scientists, including MIT Professor John Leonard, contend the NFL’s claims in Deflategate were scientifically implausible, one might question the persuasiveness of such a distinction. After all, whether consumers have confidence that they are buying accurately marketed official NFL products goes directly to the integrity of the league.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/04/13/n...iner-sports-memorabilia-scandal-roger-goodell
Eli Manning Denies Claim Regarding Fake Game-Used Memorabilia
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSAPRIL 20, 2017
Eli Manning angrily denied providing fake game-used memorabilia to a collector, insisting Thursday that he would ultimately be vindicated.
Manning addressed the accusations after a plaintiff in a 2014 lawsuit recently filed a motion to compel testimony that included an email from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for two helmets that could pass as game-used items.
Manning refused to discuss the specifics of the civil case, which is scheduled to go to trial in September in state Superior Court in Bergen County, N.J.
“I will say I have never done what I have been accused of doing,” Manning said at a news media availability for the Giants. “I have no reason nor have I had any reason to do anything of that nature. I have done nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide, and I know when this is done everyone will see it the same way.”
Manning said he could handle people attacking him for his play, but attacking his integrity was something else, and his voice reflected that he was upset.
“I think my track record of how I have handled myself since I have been here in New York since 2004 speaks for itself,” Manning said. “I have tried to do everything with class and be a standup citizen. That’s what I have done.”
Eric Inselberg, a sports memorabilia collector from Short Hills, N.J., sued Manning, the Giants co-owner John Mara and others in 2014, alleging they engaged in a scam to sell fake “game-worn” equipment for profit. He also asked that the Giants be held accountable for the lies that led to his indictment on federal charges that ruined his business.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
Those federal charges against Inselberg were later dropped.
His lawsuit against Manning and the Giants returned to the headlines recently when the plaintiff filed a motion to compel testimony. It included the email from Manning to a team equipment manager.
Manning insisted that email was taken out of context, adding that some recent court filings will make that clear.
“This was first reported three years ago and I have been dealing with it for a long time,” Manning said, “but I am just more angry than anything having to deal with it, knowing I have done nothing wrong and still being attacked.”
Manning said he has been surprised how people have turned in the wake of the email, which he gave to the plaintiff in discovery.
“Someone starts something up and everybody turns against you very quickly,” Manning said. “It hurts.”
He said the league has not talked to him about the allegations.
Manning has a deal with Steiner Sports to provide memorabilia. He said he has never personally sold or made any money off a jersey or helmet sale.
Manning, who is scheduled to earn almost $20 million in salary and bonuses this season, was asked why he had a contract with a memorabilia dealer when he made so much money on the field.
“Well, it’s just autographs,” he said. “It is just a way to sign your name, and I think a lot of people do it. It is just part of the business.”
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSAPRIL 20, 2017
Eli Manning angrily denied providing fake game-used memorabilia to a collector, insisting Thursday that he would ultimately be vindicated.
Manning addressed the accusations after a plaintiff in a 2014 lawsuit recently filed a motion to compel testimony that included an email from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for two helmets that could pass as game-used items.
Manning refused to discuss the specifics of the civil case, which is scheduled to go to trial in September in state Superior Court in Bergen County, N.J.
“I will say I have never done what I have been accused of doing,” Manning said at a news media availability for the Giants. “I have no reason nor have I had any reason to do anything of that nature. I have done nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide, and I know when this is done everyone will see it the same way.”
Manning said he could handle people attacking him for his play, but attacking his integrity was something else, and his voice reflected that he was upset.
“I think my track record of how I have handled myself since I have been here in New York since 2004 speaks for itself,” Manning said. “I have tried to do everything with class and be a standup citizen. That’s what I have done.”
Eric Inselberg, a sports memorabilia collector from Short Hills, N.J., sued Manning, the Giants co-owner John Mara and others in 2014, alleging they engaged in a scam to sell fake “game-worn” equipment for profit. He also asked that the Giants be held accountable for the lies that led to his indictment on federal charges that ruined his business.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
Those federal charges against Inselberg were later dropped.
His lawsuit against Manning and the Giants returned to the headlines recently when the plaintiff filed a motion to compel testimony. It included the email from Manning to a team equipment manager.
Manning insisted that email was taken out of context, adding that some recent court filings will make that clear.
“This was first reported three years ago and I have been dealing with it for a long time,” Manning said, “but I am just more angry than anything having to deal with it, knowing I have done nothing wrong and still being attacked.”
Manning said he has been surprised how people have turned in the wake of the email, which he gave to the plaintiff in discovery.
“Someone starts something up and everybody turns against you very quickly,” Manning said. “It hurts.”
He said the league has not talked to him about the allegations.
Manning has a deal with Steiner Sports to provide memorabilia. He said he has never personally sold or made any money off a jersey or helmet sale.
Manning, who is scheduled to earn almost $20 million in salary and bonuses this season, was asked why he had a contract with a memorabilia dealer when he made so much money on the field.
“Well, it’s just autographs,” he said. “It is just a way to sign your name, and I think a lot of people do it. It is just part of the business.”
Eli Manning responds to memorabilia scandal allegations: 'I've done nothing wrong'
Giants quarterback Eli Manning pushed back Thursday against allegations that he took part in a scheme to provide fake game-worn memorabilia to collectors, saying "I've done nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide."
The New York Post reported last week that it obtained court documents containing emails indicating Manning tried to pass off equipment as game-used. Manning sent the Giants' equipment manager an email in 2010 requesting "two helmets that can pass as game used."
The two-time Super Bowl winner said Thursday he is angry about the attacks on his character.
"I’ve tried to do everything with class and be a standup citizen," Manning said, according to ESPN. "That’s what I have done.’’
The controversy—which is a civil, not criminal offense—prompted a response from the Giants last week.
"The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday," the team tweeted.
Manning passed for 4,027 yards and 16 touchdowns last year as the Giants went 11-5.
Giants quarterback Eli Manning pushed back Thursday against allegations that he took part in a scheme to provide fake game-worn memorabilia to collectors, saying "I've done nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide."
The New York Post reported last week that it obtained court documents containing emails indicating Manning tried to pass off equipment as game-used. Manning sent the Giants' equipment manager an email in 2010 requesting "two helmets that can pass as game used."
The two-time Super Bowl winner said Thursday he is angry about the attacks on his character.
"I’ve tried to do everything with class and be a standup citizen," Manning said, according to ESPN. "That’s what I have done.’’
The controversy—which is a civil, not criminal offense—prompted a response from the Giants last week.
"The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday," the team tweeted.
Manning passed for 4,027 yards and 16 touchdowns last year as the Giants went 11-5.
damn right....
Settlement reached in Eli Manning memorabilia fraud lawsuit
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23506027/settlement-reached-eli-manning-memorabilia-fraud-lawsuit
Three sports memorabilia collectors who accused New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning of providing bogus "game-worn" equipment that was sold to unsuspecting fans settled their lawsuit against the Super Bowl-winning quarterback on Monday, days before the case was scheduled to go to trial.
A spokesman for the defendants, a group that included Manning, the Giants, two equipment managers and Steiner Sports, the company with whom Manning is under contract to provide game-worn jerseys and helmets for sale, said Monday night a settlement had been reached to resolve the claims. Details were not given.
The attorneys for both sides issued a joint statement that read: "[Plaintiffs] Eric Inselberg, Michael Jakab and Sean Godown have resolved all claims in their pending litigation against the New York Giants, Eli Manning, John Mara, William Heller, Joseph Skiba, Edward Skiba and Steiner Sports, in accordance with a confidential settlement agreement reached today. The compromise agreement, entered into by all parties, should not be viewed as supporting any allegations, claims or defenses."
"All parties are grateful to have the matter, which began in 2014, concluded and are now focused on football, the fans and the future," the statement added.
ADVERTISEMENT
Inselberg, Jakab and Godown had sought triple the amount of their alleged losses -- which totaled less than $20,000 combined -- for buying two helmets billed as worn by Manning. They also had sought punitive damages, and claimed in court filings they would produce evidence that would "show that Manning engaged in a pattern of knowingly providing items to Steiner Sports that he misrepresented as having been game-used when he knew they were not."
Manning and the Giants had denied the allegations and characterized the suit as "inflammatory and baseless" in court filings.
Jury selection was to have begun this week, but a death in the family of one of the attorneys had pushed that back to next Monday.
Fourteen lawyers representing all parties involved in the case gathered Monday at the Bergen County Justice Center for the first day of the civil suit that was set to be tried. The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Brian Brook, said after the judge went over the logistics and housekeeping that he had been receiving the "silent treatment" from the other side. Brook said he had never experienced anything like it.
When they left the courthouse before noon, there was little optimism from all parties involved that a settlement would soon be reached. Nine hours later, however, it was finished.
A joint statement from all the plaintiffs and defendants, a group that included Eli Manning (above), the Giants and the team's equipment managers, says a confidential memorabilia fraud settlement was reached on Monday. Al Bello/Getty Images
Inselberg filed the lawsuit in 2014. The suit claimed two helmets purchased by Inselberg and the two other plaintiffs -- including one purportedly used by Manning during the Giants' 2007 Super Bowl season -- were bogus. Inselberg alleged photographic experts using a technique called "photomatching" could not find evidence that the helmets were ever used in games.
The Giants and Manning contend photomatching is unreliable because it does not take into account that helmets are routinely reconditioned during or after a season, the evidence of which might be found on the inside of the helmet and not the outside.
The stakes were raised in the lawsuit in April 2017 when Inselberg's attorneys filed court documents that contained emails between Manning and equipment manager Joseph Skiba, who also was a defendant in the lawsuit. In one email, Manning asks Skiba to get "2 helmets that can pass as game used."
The email does not refer to the two helmets at issue in the lawsuit, but Inselberg alleged it indicates a pattern of fraud.
When the emails went public last year, Manning angrily denied any wrongdoing. In a court filing this month, Manning's attorney wrote that the email was intended to ask Skiba for two game-used helmets that would "satisfy the requirement of being game-used."
"Manning never instructed Joe Skiba to create any fraudulent memorabilia," attorney Robert Lawrence wrote. "Rather, Manning believed that if he asked Joe Skiba for his helmets, he received his game-used helmets and that the helmets he received from Skiba were his game-used helmets."
In the same court filing, Manning's lawyer accused Inselberg of being "engaged in a decades-long memorabilia scheme" in which he obtained, without permission, game-used Giants equipment, including Manning's, from Skiba and Skiba's brother, Ed, as well as a local dry cleaner
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/eli-manning-settles-memorabilia-fraud-suit/
Eli Manning settles memorabilia fraud suit
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 14, 2018, 8:29 PM EDT
Getty Images
Eli Manning will no longer have a potentially serious legal issue hanging over his head.
Manning has settled the memorabilia fraud lawsuit that had been scheduled to begin today, a league source tells PFT.
At the last minute the trial did not start today because of a death in the family of one of the attorneys, but now there will be no trial, as Manning and the plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement.
Manning was accused of fraudulently passing off memorabilia as game-worn even though he hadn’t worn it in a game. At the center of the dispute were messages from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for helmets “that can pass as game used.”
The plaintiffs said they were duped by Manning into paying for “game-used” items that weren’t actually used in games. Now that issue will not go before a jury, and Manning has put it behind him.
Eli Manning settles memorabilia fraud suit
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 14, 2018, 8:29 PM EDT
Getty Images
Eli Manning will no longer have a potentially serious legal issue hanging over his head.
Manning has settled the memorabilia fraud lawsuit that had been scheduled to begin today, a league source tells PFT.
At the last minute the trial did not start today because of a death in the family of one of the attorneys, but now there will be no trial, as Manning and the plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement.
Manning was accused of fraudulently passing off memorabilia as game-worn even though he hadn’t worn it in a game. At the center of the dispute were messages from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for helmets “that can pass as game used.”
The plaintiffs said they were duped by Manning into paying for “game-used” items that weren’t actually used in games. Now that issue will not go before a jury, and Manning has put it behind him.
Why settle something that discredits your name if you're not guilty?
At the center of the dispute were messages from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for helmets “that can pass as game used.”
SCUMBAG! He should be suspended for this bullshit.
Eli 'totally at peace' with Hall of Fame omission
Eli Manning said he's happy for this year's 4-person Hall of Fame class and isn't letting what happened sour his outlook on his career or Canton overall.