Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 gotcha - i was trying to extrapolate from about a half sentence on ESPNs ticker. thanks.As evidenced by the clarifications, my bad. He wasn't asked first. I was referencing this Florio blurb that I read yesterday. "As the NFL and NFL Players Association continue to try (and fail) to make progress on a potential settlement of the Tom Brady suspension, one influential owner has declined to have a direct influence on the situation. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Giants co-owner John Mara has declined a request that he participate directly in the talks, citing a competitive conflict of interest arising from New England’s Week Five game against the Cowboys. If Brady’s suspension is reduced by even one game, Brady will play in the post-bye contest against Dallas — and New England will be more likely to win."
TheFunPolice Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 I sort of want Brady to play in these games, just from a fan standpoint. Dallas vs New England* will be fun w Brady. Dallas is going to win anyway, but it will be fun.
YoloinOhio Posted August 22, 2015 Author Posted August 22, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: Donald Trump says NFL has mistreated his "great friend" Tom Brady http://t.co/l6PoAuhK7q
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 As evidenced by the clarifications, my bad. He wasn't asked first. I was referencing this Florio blurb that I read yesterday. "As the NFL and NFL Players Association continue to try (and fail) to make progress on a potential settlement of the Tom Brady suspension, one influential owner has declined to have a direct influence on the situation. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Giants co-owner John Mara has declined a request that he participate directly in the talks, citing a competitive conflict of interest arising from New Englands Week Five game against the Cowboys. If Bradys suspension is reduced by even one game, Brady will play in the post-bye contest against Dallas and New England will be more likely to win." Either way, we kind of had the gist. I'll agree Mara isn't the right guy, but I think that working in a 3rd party helps with appearing "fair" instead of "whimsically protecting the shield and egos" even if the outcome is the same. Which you would think would protect the shield more than dogging in heels would even if the outcome isn't what the league wants. For some of the older guys- was the phrase "protect the shield" around back in the day? It strikes me as a new one that has gotten popular the last decade and feeds into "if you are against the leagues stance you are against the integrity of the league" type of rhetoric
PromoTheRobot Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 All this nonsense obscures the fact that the Pats** cheated then covered it up. All else is distraction.
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 All this nonsense obscures the fact that the Pats** cheated then covered it up. All else is distraction. Even if they did- just as concerning as a fan of a team in the league should be whether the nfl discipline process is broken. That's not just a distraction.
l< j Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) Even if they did- just as concerning as a fan of a team in the league should be whether the nfl discipline process is broken. That's not just a distraction. It's not clear that it is broken. But it is clear that Brady cheated. It only looks broken if you think that Wells didn't meet the "more likely than not" standard. It may be broken, and I'd like the league and NFLPA to have that discussion. But that doesn't negate the cheating, nor should it erase the punishment. And we aren't anywhere near the "more likely than not" standard for the claim that the discipline problem is broken. People are forgetting that the Brady side is litigating in the media and they threw a lot of stuff at the wall. Don't mistake the slime sliding down the wall for proven facts. kj Edited August 22, 2015 by l< j
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 It's not clear that it is broken. But it is clear that Brady cheated. It only looks broken if you think that Wells didn't meet the "more likely than not" standard. It may be broken, and I'd like the league and NFLPA to have that discussion. But that doesn't negate the cheating, nor should it erase the punishment. And we aren't anywhere near the "more likely than not" standard for the claim that the discipline problem is broken. People are forgetting that the Brady side is litigating in the media and they threw a lot of stuff at the wall. Don't mistake the slime sliding down the wall for proven facts. kj I think that looking at this as totally isolated it's probably not the case you stake that claim to but in the wider context of the many cases the last 5 years that have had issues this one is echoing a lot of the same problems, even if not as extreme.
Tuco Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) It's not clear that it is broken. But it is clear that Brady cheated. It only looks broken if you think that Wells didn't meet the "more likely than not" standard. It may be broken, and I'd like the league and NFLPA to have that discussion. But that doesn't negate the cheating, nor should it erase the punishment. And we aren't anywhere near the "more likely than not" standard for the claim that the discipline problem is broken. People are forgetting that the Brady side is litigating in the media and they threw a lot of stuff at the wall. Don't mistake the slime sliding down the wall for proven facts. kj This is it. The players agreed to the system, however lopsided it seems. We can't know how much the league gives the players in order to keep the commissioner's power in place every time there's a new CBA, but we do know from reports it's argued about every time around. Does the league give the players a bigger percentage of revenue for it? Something else? That's outside ours, and even the court's domain to know. But the issue should be resolved during negotiations. It may seem unfair, but that's how CBA sometimes work. Generally, there's over 1800 players who don't have a problem with the current discipline system. And if they agree to it in the name of more money, well the select few are stuck with it. Some players hate the franchise tag too, but they're stuck with it because the majority rules and they don't care. The NFL's issue now that this case is in court is to stand their ground to protect their bargained for position on discipline. If a player can demand a 3rd party every time there's a problem, then the league has lost a very important part of their side of the CBA regardless of what they gave up to keep it in place. Yes, if it goes far enough the court has to see that the league doesn't overstep their bounds. And that's what Brady is arguing because he doesn't have anything else to argue. The NFLPA would love to have a 3rd party come in and settle this, but that's not how they agreed to do it. And the NFL has a lot to lose by setting that precedent over and over. Reaching a settlement via 3rd party or by letting Brady off the "blame" hook sets a future precedent. But if the NFL loses because the court says Goodell overstepped, they may have lost a battle, but their bargained for position of commissioner imposed discipline will still be in place. For the league that's what this has become. They're not going to agree to a 3rd party unless it's court imposed. And, since the commissioner decided Brady guilty, they're not going to reach any settlement without Brady admitting guilt. Edited August 22, 2015 by Tuco
3rdand12 Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 why dont they bring the whole commision on board and expose the owners?man that would be fun. Might as well since this has turned into a Florio signature event by now. One that keeps on giving. Just burn the heretical witch already. He wont renounce his devilish ways.
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 One of the bigger things is not letting them talk to Pash, but ok what was he gonna say anyway? As little as possible. So I wish they had let him interview. I highly doubt he was gonna say, I changed the actual finding of the Well's report and Goodell and I met to figure how to better frame Brady. Short of that it would not have changed anything anyway.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 Even if they did- just as concerning as a fan of a team in the league should be whether the nfl discipline process is broken. That's not just a distraction.So cheaters skate? To me that is the ultimate damage.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 So cheaters skate? To me that is the ultimate damage.As everyone here knows, I've been the biggest arguer that Brady cheated and lied. But there is just as justified a reason for saying the NFL can't unjustly treat him. I'm a big proponent of the fact you have to let known criminals go if the police or fbi or authorities abuse their power. Because overall it's worse for society. Goodell and the NFL should rightfully be held to play by the rules and not abuse them. In fact, if they really abused them, Brady should be let go completely. I don't think that is remotely true here though. All of their many mistakes are technicalities and trivial. They didn't change the investigation or findings. They shouldn't be allowed free reign though. They shouldn't be allowed to change the rules after the fact and then punish guys under the new rules like they did before.
Orlando Buffalo Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 I keep reading people on this board who claim to be law experts or claim to have real understanding of the legal system. This case is simple: The evidence available makes it more likely than not the Brady was aware of the rules being broken, That is the only standard that matters. The judge is blasting the NFL for two reasons: to make them settle and also to embarass them for making the puishment equal for Tommy boy and Greg Hardy. The only way the judge can overturn it is to rule that brady has shown that he most likely innocent(which would be absurd) or that the League does not the legal power to rule as it did(this is plausible but still not likely). All other issues are distractions.
bigdogtim Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 It would seem patently unfair on the part of the Union to concede in negotiations only to litigate subsequently. Even kids on the playground recognize the inappropriateness of this tactic. I don't care if is is tom Brady or the 53rd guy on the Jacksonville roster, a deal is a deal. All of what then nlfpa has done since the beginning, to me, is in bad faith.
Beef Jerky Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: Donald Trump says NFL has mistreated his "great friend" Tom Brady http://t.co/l6PoAuhK7q Brady has embarrassed himself. Just accept your punishment and move on, wasting time and money to bring this into the justice system is just disgraceful.
Mr. WEO Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I keep reading people on this board who claim to be law experts or claim to have real understanding of the legal system. This case is simple: The evidence available makes it more likely than not the Brady was aware of the rules being broken, That is the only standard that matters. The judge is blasting the NFL for two reasons: to make them settle and also to embarass them for making the puishment equal for Tommy boy and Greg Hardy. The only way the judge can overturn it is to rule that brady has shown that he most likely innocent(which would be absurd) or that the League does not the legal power to rule as it did(this is plausible but still not likely). All other issues are distractions. For a guy who is taking to post about what others don't know, you have fully demonstrated that you have no idea what is going on with this case at this point. Edited August 23, 2015 by Mr. WEO
Orlando Buffalo Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 For a guy who is taking to post about what others don't know, you have fully demonstrated that you have no idea what is going on with this case at this point. Mr. Weo I will type it in simpler words for you. The judge can ask any questions he wants and can push the two sides in any direction he finds useful but at the end of the trial he is severely limited in what he can truly rule on. The NFL is a private organization disciplining one of its employees for actions it found inapporiate. So the judge can rule this punishment is outside the realm of what is appropriate based on governmental laws but not much else. The points Brady is scoring against the NFL for being heavy handed is making the NFL look bad but have little relevance without it being tied to something grander. This is not a criminal case and therefore does not have same standards.
Malazan Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Brady has embarrassed himself. Just accept your punishment and move on, wasting time and money to bring this into the justice system is just disgraceful. The longer it goes, the more tarnished his legacy. You won't ever be able to do a web search for him without the scandal being attached to his name.
JohnC Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) For a guy who is taking to post about what others don't know, you have fully demonstrated that you have no idea what is going on with this case at this point. Isn't it ironic that the clamoring crowd chortles about Brady's legacy when in reality when this foolish case is concluded the person who will come out of this fiasco tarnished the most is Roger Goodell. This case continues to unravel in front of a no-nonsense judge in a court deliberately selected by the league. Not only is the judge exposing that the facts of the case are questionable, but even more importantly the process is glaringly tainted. The below link is from a Washington Post column by Christine Brennan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/deflategate-judge-doesnt-seem-likely-to-rubber-stamp-roger-goodells-decisions/2015/08/21/034f8a26-4747-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html Edited August 23, 2015 by JohnC
Recommended Posts