NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 What does this mean @SportsCenter: NFLPA files motions on Tom Brady's behalf in his fight against the NFL. Union is asking court to vacate league's denial of Brady's appeal. it sounds they are contesting the validity of how the appeal process was handled, but with it being a simple 140 character tweet, and espn, theres a range of interpretations.
SCD Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I wonder just how many owner buddies Kraft has at this moment. Anyhew heres a link to the Constitution and ByLaws of the NFL - although dated 2006 not sure if its current: http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf - I found interest in reading sections 3.11A/C/F, 6.5A/B, Most of Article8 - especially 8.13, 9.1C4 - 3.11C basically strikes down any counter-suits to Goodell from Kraft, doesn't it? - 6.5B says penalties and fines could indeed increase if warranted? - 9.1C4 indicates that the criticism may only be directed at the commish, but not the league or anyone in it. - This Constitution basically says, the Commish can do whatever he wants for basically whatever reason he wants to create (as I interpret) And here is the CBA - "The provisions of which supercede any conflicting provision - including NFL Constituiton, Contracts, Rules.." https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf - I found Article 46 section 1A and 2A of interest - this documents a little too big to even skim within reason. - Again, Commish has every power in the world to do what he pleases, as he pleases. (as I interpret) I didn't see anything specific about voting out owners a la Donald Sterling style, but I guess what I am driving at, is with all this posturing, and publicity - The League and the owners really gotta be thinking to themselves that this nonsense is anything but good for their overall image. At what point do they consider cutting Kraft loose? Demands apologies? Dude, your man cheated, don't defend him...
LeGOATski Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 it sounds they are contesting the validity of how the appeal process was handled, but with it being a simple 140 character tweet, and espn, theres a range of interpretations. Yeah. They're going to say that the NFL ignored all of the new excuses/evidence at the appeal hearing because they are biased. Evidence that was supposed to be available before the hearing and could have been made available during the investigation. Everything they're doing is to try to make Goodell look incompetent and unable to do his job, get him fired, hire a new commissioner, and negotiate a new CBA.
Mr. WEO Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 it sounds they are contesting the validity of how the appeal process was handled, but with it being a simple 140 character tweet, and espn, theres a range of interpretations. Isn't this and the suspension itself the basis of Brady's threatened court action? Why owuld all the phone records and texts etc. be involved? It's not to establish his innocense, but to negate the league's action as somehow agaisnt the CBA.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 between records, and whats been turned over it might simply be honest. just because there are three others doesnt mean they have access to turn them over. but thats kind of the issue ive been hammering since wells said they could self screen and whatever is turned in was fine -- without doubt, anything short of EVERYTHING gets met with the reaction you just had. thats not saying those 3 are innocent but we have no idea if they are as guilty as everyone immediately assumes. The next one they didnt turn in is always going to be assumed to be the smoking gun. I just meant it's an incredible and incredibly stupid thing to say on several different levels that just begs for more questions and accusations and does not sound like something innocent people do or say.
Mr. WEO Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I wonder just how many owner buddies Kraft has at this moment. Anyhew heres a link to the Constitution and ByLaws of the NFL - although dated 2006 not sure if its current: http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf - I found interest in reading sections 3.11A/C/F, 6.5A/B, Most of Article8 - especially 8.13, 9.1C4 - 3.11C basically strikes down any counter-suits to Goodell from Kraft, doesn't it? - 6.5B says penalties and fines could indeed increase if warranted? - 9.1C4 indicates that the criticism may only be directed at the commish, but not the league or anyone in it. - This Constitution basically says, the Commish can do whatever he wants for basically whatever reason he wants to create (as I interpret) And here is the CBA - "The provisions of which supercede any conflicting provision - including NFL Constituiton, Contracts, Rules.." https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf - I found Article 46 section 1A and 2A of interest - this documents a little too big to even skim within reason. - Again, Commish has every power in the world to do what he pleases, as he pleases. (as I interpret) I didn't see anything specific about voting out owners a la Donald Sterling style, but I guess what I am driving at, is with all this posturing, and publicity - The League and the owners really gotta be thinking to themselves that this nonsense is anything but good for their overall image. At what point do they consider cutting Kraft loose? Demands apologies? Dude, your man cheated, don't defend him... He, like them, knows where all the bodies are buried. They don't want anyone digging in their back yards... Also, the other 31 owners would rather have this grand theater any day of the week than what they were going thorugh last year with the wife and child beaters.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Isn't this and the suspension itself the basis of Brady's threatened court action? Why owuld all the phone records and texts etc. be involved? It's not to establish his innocense, but to negate the league's action as somehow agaisnt the CBA. Yes, of course.
Mr. WEO Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Yes, of course. Why are posters talking about subpoenaed phone records and guys "taking the 5th" on the stand? Edited July 29, 2015 by Mr. WEO
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 it sounds they are contesting the validity of how the appeal process was handled, but with it being a simple 140 character tweet, and espn, theres a range of interpretations. That's the only thing they can contest. If they contest it on the evidence, they almost certainly get laughed out of court. Isn't this and the suspension itself the basis of Brady's threatened court action? Why owuld all the phone records and texts etc. be involved? It's not to establish his innocense, but to negate the league's action as somehow agaisnt the CBA. The suspension itself isn't. And the phone records are involved NOW because Brady destroyed his phone. Since he had a reasonable expectation of there being a court action, he destroyed evidence, thus making it an issue for the court. Had he simply said "!@#$ off, I'm not handing over my phone, and you can't make me," it wouldn't be evidence. There's irony for you. Something he didn't have to hand over, he destroyed, thus making it relevant to his case.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Why are posters talking about subpoenaed phone records and guys "taking the 5th" on the stand? There is speculation from some, I personally think is ridiculous, that Brady and his team will open a can of worms where suddenly the actual case will become part of the case before the judge. I think that is preposterous.
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Why are posters talking about subpoenaed phone records and guys "taking the 5th" on the stand? I was talking about McNally and the other guy taking the 5th only in the context of responding to a hypothetical subpoena but adhering to their hypothetical NDAs at the same time.
dave mcbride Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Yep. I imagine that there was hard bargaining and it was rather contemptuous. It's possible that Goodell was driving a hard bargain when he couldn't get any answers out of them. They really were giving him foolish answers at that meeting, like "There is no reason to bring in McNally and Jastremski for questioning, Tom wants to face his accusers, not his friends that already said he didnt do anything." I would have laughed in their face. At that point maybe Goodell said list of no texts, no deal, or something along those lines and that is maybe when they said we couldn't even if we wanted. He destroyed his phone like he does all of them (which was a lie). Even today, Yee said something incredibly stupid, that the NFL already had "All but three of Tom's texts between Tom and Jastremski." WTF? All but three? That's not incriminating or opening another can of worms. Reminds me of Bush's defenders saying that the passage in his 2003 SOTU speech about Iraqi pursuit of yellowcake uranium (later proven false) was merely 16 words of a much longer speech and shouldn't have mattered much! Edited July 29, 2015 by dave mcbride
The Wiz Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) There is speculation from some, I personally think is ridiculous, that Brady and his team will open a can of worms where suddenly the actual case will become part of the case before the judge. I think that is preposterous. It's a done deal at this point. The NFLPA is going after Goodell and the investigation/appeal process. The suspension can't be challenged at this point. The appeal can only be overruled by a judge. Though I do find Slammy's post interesting about possible increases in fines/penalties if warranted. Reminds me of Bush's defenders saying that the passage in his 2003 SOTU speech about Iraqi pursuit of yellowcake uranium (later proven false) was merely 16 words of a much longer speech and shouldn't have mattered much! Yee: WE GAVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR!!! except these three text messages. The fact he knows how many texts they didn't give them (I'm actually assuming they didn't give them anything) kind of questions what those three text messages said. A solid number, 3. Not didn't give up any or some of his but 3. It would be equivalent to the plaintiff asking OJ: "Did you stab your wife?" and OJ replying "I did not stab her 3 times" Edited July 29, 2015 by The Wiz
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 A commissioner in one league cannot go after a player in another league if that league has a team in the same geographic region. LOL! A thinking man's reference! I'd love it if Rog went full Warden Norton on Brady. "You will play the hardest QB there is. No more protection from the refs.....I'll cast you down with the Sodomites!" Now you're just being obtuse. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I just meant it's an incredible and incredibly stupid thing to say on several different levels that just begs for more questions and accusations and does not sound like something innocent people do or say. Innocent people wouldn't say they turned in all but 3? Why's that?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Reminds me of Bush's defenders saying that the passage in his 2003 SOTU speech about Iraqi pursuit of yellowcake uranium (later proven false) was merely 16 words of a much longer speech and shouldn't have mattered much! Lol. Yeah that was a good one. That yellow cake episode was a hoot. You really can't make some of this stuff up. Innocent people wouldn't say they turned in all but 3? Why's that? Because they would just show the three and say here. You got everything but this. Or explain what they were. Or would have shown all of them.
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Lol. Yeah that was a good one. That yellow cake episode was a hoot. You really can't make some of this stuff up. Because they would just show the three and say here. You got everything but this. Or explain what they were. Or would have shown all of them. Isn't it entirely possible they just don't have access to them? If deleted and ATT isn't giving them records.... Edited July 29, 2015 by NoSaint
YoloinOhio Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 @AlbertBreer: Judge Richard Kyle drew the Brady/NFLPA v. NFL case in Minnesota. Lawyer friend pointed out he's a Bush appointee. That's good for the NFL. @TomPelissero: Just talked to Jeff Kessler. NFLPA filing suit for Tom Brady on four grounds, including lack of notice and Roger Goodell's partiality.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Isn't it entirely possible they just don't have access to them? They don't have access to them because they destroyed the phone. Or they could ask Jastremski to provide the three. Or they could say what those three were or ask Jastremski what they were. It's just a stupid thing to say, don't you think? @AlbertBreer: Judge Richard Kyle drew the Brady/NFLPA v. NFL case in Minnesota. Lawyer friend pointed out he's a Bush appointee. That's good for the NFL. Lol. That ties it up, there was a tweet earlier that the NFL in New York drew a Clinton appointee who was a liberal which is good for the NFLPA because he is likely to be pro Union. It's good to know everyone gets a fair shot in the justice system.
YoloinOhio Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: 4 allegations of Brady suit 1. No advance notice of punishment 2. Not fair and consistent punishment 3. Unfair appeal 4. Goodell partial
Recommended Posts