stony Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 hes a celeb - agent, coaches, teammates, wife, kids, ex wife, lawyer, friends, etc... can EASILY add up to 100 a day id imagine. while it seems clear hes covering stuff up i dont think that 10k number is noteworthy here. Agreed. The coverup is smashing the phone, most likely not the volume of the text messages.
Clippers of Nfl Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 hes a celeb - agent, coaches, teammates, wife, kids, ex wife, lawyer, friends, etc... can EASILY add up to 100 a day id imagine. while it seems clear hes covering stuff up i dont think that 10k number is noteworthy here. If he's texting that many times a day, how does he find time to cheat? See your point destroyed.
macaroni Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If I were Goodell ..... and I'm not ...... I'd put Brady on the commissioners exempt list until the court case was settled, that way Tommy boy is only hurting the Patz***, and Goodell "protects the shield".
YoloinOhio Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Coffee and lies... @AndrewSiciliano: Bill Belichick press conference live tomorrow morning 9:30 ET @nflnetwork
Wayne Cubed Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) that seems like the obvious explanation, but the concept of pre-emptively getting a court judgement confirming something that is not yet disputed surprised me (as a non-legal expert) the theory of why you would do it is seemingly obvious, but that the courts would place themselves into that situation didnt strike me as normal well, its about to actually get interesting if true. i know a lot of folks here doubted it would ever happen and thought it was a bluff. According to Florio, it's very common, it's called "forum shopping". Basically sets up the case to be heard in the best place possible for th outcome they want. Edited July 28, 2015 by Wayne Cubed
Offside Number 76 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I wrote this at SabreSpace and someone asked me to post it here: Very materially. In the Second Circuit (for the rest of the board, that's where this is playing out, if this was filed in Manhattan): a party must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a serious question going to the merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor. Lots of circuits do not have the "serious question" option. Now let's analyze: What's the irreparable harm? Not his lost salary, because money is never, ever considered "irreparable harm." Not likely his reputation, since at the end of the day, he could still be vindicated by a verdict in his favor. It's got to be the opportunity to play. With a normal occupation, that won't fly, since the real opportunity is to earn money (again, never, ever considered "irreparable harm"),but maybe with a waning football career, he's got something. Maybe. The second prong of the test: Overturning an arbitrator's decision is hard, so he probably doesn't have a likelihood of success on the merits. But one basis for overturning an award is arbitrator bias, and he may try to argue that Goodell is biased. That's at least a serious question going to the merits. Now we're down to a balance of hardships, and whether it tips decidedly in his favor, and I have no idea. The league has a serious interest in wanting to effectively and efficiently discipline cheaters. Brady has an interest in playing football. Don't know what a judge is going to do there.
Clippers of Nfl Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If I were Goodell ..... and I'm not ...... I'd put Brady on the commissioners exempt list until the court case was settled, that way Tommy boy is only hurting the Patz***, and Goodell "protects the shield". If i were Goodell, Brady would be missing.
Mr. WEO Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If I were Goodell ..... and I'm not ...... I'd put Brady on the commissioners exempt list until the court case was settled, that way Tommy boy is only hurting the Patz***, and Goodell "protects the shield". Wouldn't the team have to do that?
NoSaint Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think the difference (if I'm correct in my assumptions-- that's a big "if") is that blocking the injunction is not affirming the NFL's findings, but affirming their authority to hand out a suspension. Brady is still free to sue. i understand all that, on a basic level, and it seems reasonable. what im getting at is id not previously heard of people going to the court to file paperwork affirming something like that without it previously being challenged. why would the courts want to get bogged down in confirming unchallenged things, to make it harder to later challenge. it seems like itd be a can o' worms getting opened up. but like i said, im no lawyer.
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: Portion of court filing by NFL against NFLPA today seeking confirmation of Tom Brady suspension that @soshnick noted http://t.co/dw6vzThWTT That's awesome. Counter-punch the NFLPA before they've even wound up.
DerekJ Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Yeah this means nothing. As long as he goes to court he will not miss a game CBF Not so fast. First, he has to get a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction putting the suspension in abeyance. One of the threshold questions is likelihood of success on the merits. That is seriously in question with the revelation of the destruction of the cell phone. At a minimum, it will make for some interesting argument. Edited July 28, 2015 by DerekJ
The Big Cat Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 i understand all that, on a basic level, and it seems reasonable. what im getting at is id not previously heard of people going to the court to file paperwork affirming something like that without it previously being challenged. why would the courts want to get bogged down in confirming unchallenged things, to make it harder to later challenge. it seems like itd be a can o' worms getting opened up. but like i said, im no lawyer. it happens.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Reading up on what Brady's legal action might be, my worry is that, while the league is almost certainly going to win, especially after it came out as to why the appeal went so long (trying to reach a settlement while damning evidence was in place, but would be bad PR) we might miss put on the suspension directly helping us. That said, if it gets pushed to November we might get it on the back end.
macaroni Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Wouldn't the team have to do that? Well it is HIS list isn't it ........ he should be able to add whoever the heck he wants ... lol out loud
Rocky Landing Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 i understand all that, on a basic level, and it seems reasonable. what im getting at is id not previously heard of people going to the court to file paperwork affirming something like that without it previously being challenged. why would the courts want to get bogged down in confirming unchallenged things, to make it harder to later challenge. it seems like itd be a can o' worms getting opened up. but like i said, im no lawyer. The very reasonable fear is that Brady will use the courts to nullify the leagues suspension by dragging out the process. That could justifiably be seen as an inappropriate use of the judicial system, and justify blocking an injunction.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 i understand all that, on a basic level, and it seems reasonable. what im getting at is id not previously heard of people going to the court to file paperwork affirming something like that without it previously being challenged. why would the courts want to get bogged down in confirming unchallenged things, to make it harder to later challenge. it seems like itd be a can o' worms getting opened up. but like i said, im no lawyer. @ProFootballTalk: NFL goes forum shopping with pre-emptive Brady lawsuit http://t.co/inlHyVcVwp
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I wrote this at SabreSpace and someone asked me to post it here: Very materially. In the Second Circuit (for the rest of the board, that's where this is playing out, if this was filed in Manhattan): a party must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a serious question going to the merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor. Lots of circuits do not have the "serious question" option. Now let's analyze: What's the irreparable harm? Not his lost salary, because money is never, ever considered "irreparable harm." Not likely his reputation, since at the end of the day, he could still be vindicated by a verdict in his favor. It's got to be the opportunity to play. With a normal occupation, that won't fly, since the real opportunity is to earn money (again, never, ever considered "irreparable harm"),but maybe with a waning football career, he's got something. Maybe. The second prong of the test: Overturning an arbitrator's decision is hard, so he probably doesn't have a likelihood of success on the merits. But one basis for overturning an award is arbitrator bias, and he may try to argue that Goodell is biased. That's at least a serious question going to the merits. Now we're down to a balance of hardships, and whether it tips decidedly in his favor, and I have no idea. The league has a serious interest in wanting to effectively and efficiently discipline cheaters. Brady has an interest in playing football. Don't know what a judge is going to do there. Key point, too: ALL the suspensions that were overturned in court were overturned only on procedural technicalities. Double jeopardy for Ray Rice, retroactive application of new policy for Adrian Peterson, and improper discipline for "undisclosed compensation" for the Bountygate players (somehow the NFLPA convinced the court that the bounties were "undisclosed compensation," the punishment for which isn't within Goodell's authority). It's obviously not beyond the possibility that Brady could get off on another technicality, since Goodell is fundamentally a brainless toad and there's no guarantee he didn't !@#$ this up somewhere. But no court has decided for a player based on an improper or excessive punishment; only on procedure.
shibuya Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yeah this means nothing. As long as he goes to court he will not miss a game CBF court can't do a damn thing to stop the suspension. Completely within league rights to determine who is suspended and for how long
Clippers of Nfl Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Coffee and lies... @AndrewSiciliano: Bill Belichick press conference live tomorrow morning 9:30 ET @nflnetwork BB "I didnt cheat. I mean, I didnt help Brady cheat. No. Oops. He didnt cheat this time. Dammit. We dont cheat anymore. S*** F****. Can I start over?"
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Final Appeal decision: https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07282015-final-decision-tom-brady-appeal.pdf Scathing! My guess is the courts decline to accept the case. I think the cell phone destruction closes this out and should remove anyone's questioning of guilt. Wow...there is just no getting out of this for Brady IMO. Just so, so many conflicting statements and flat-out lies.
Recommended Posts