Terry Pegula is ALLEGED to have said something very foul in the Jim Trotter lawsuit against the NFL

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

To be clear, the accuser for Pegula is an unnamed reporter. Trotters complaint is that the league didn’t do anything to investigate what he heard from Jones and what a colleague says they heard from Pegula.

 

Additionally It sounds like Trotter is trying to say that after filing a complaint with the league and them never responding despite multiple attempts, that his professional life then got harder. 

 

They cut him loose after saying they didn't see any reason why they would not renew his contract and even asked if he wanted to expand his responsibilities.  But after he brought up for a second year in a row at the SB press conference why NFL Media didn't have anyone of color at the top editorial spots, Goodell had enough.  Weeks later they told his agent they didn't want him anymore.

[Mark Vader]

2 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Why would he pick Pegula to bring down? If he wanted to bring down the NFL, he would make up a story about the Bills' owner?

Because the Bills have become a good and popular team now.

 

It's the same with the Redskins. When they sucked, nobody gave a damn about their team name. As soon as they became a playoff team, everyone cared.

 

That's how you target who you target.

[Beck Water]

18 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

Sounds like BS to me. That statement is so an over the top caricature thing to me. Does he have a recording or a text? I doubt Pegula is racist as his wife is Asian and didn’t his daughter date Jason Croom a black player ? 

 

Yes, one daughter, Kelly Pegula, was dating Jason Croom, a black man, for several years.

Another daughter, Jessica Pegula, has as her professional tennis Doubles partner, Coco Gauff, a black woman.

 

Unfortunately having black relatives or friends does not automagically purge the racism from people

 

But, Terry Pegula denies it, so unless there is other evidence, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt there.

4 minutes ago, wppete said:

Wow Terry what the heck! That’s is a crazy statement…., things are starting to unravel. 

 

Benefit of the doubt?  You ever get accused of saying something you didn't?

[BullBuchanan]

9 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

Because i like proof with my accusations

 

like actual, documented, recorded proof before the witch-hunt begins

 

if there was documented recorded proof, it wouldn't be an accusation - it would be a fact.

Although, I'm guessing in your case, that documented recorded proof would result in a shifting of goalposts and a twisting of intent.

[Just Jack]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If it was recorded.

A good reporter would have been recording it, so they can make sure anything they had to quote was correct. 

[UKBillFan]

Just now, Just Jack said:

A good reporter would have been recording it, so they can make sure anything they had to quote was correct. 

 

I assume the alleged comment was off the cuff, rather than part of an interview.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Just Jack said:

A good reporter would have been recording it, so they can make sure anything they had to quote was correct. 

Typically the reporter will ask "do you mind if I record this?" That's the standard.

[Low Positive]

1 minute ago, Just Jack said:

A good reporter would have been recording it, so they can make sure anything they had to quote was correct. 

It was said at a dinner, not in an interview.

[John from Riverside]

I just don’t want to believe this

 

I’m gonna need some proof in order to just start believing it as fact

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

if there was documented recorded proof, it wouldn't be an accusation - it would be a fact.

Although, I'm guessing in your case, that documented recorded proof would result in a shifting of goalposts and a twisting of intent.

 

Nah, if there's proof, I'll accept it.

 

But you're an excellent inquisitor. Torquemada would have been proud.

 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

correct--see above.

 

but Trotter wasn't hearing hearsay

 

Sorry Weo, I think that’s a distinction without a difference. For Trotter to publicly attribute these statements to Pegula is textbook hearsay since he never heard Pegula say this first hand, and as a general rule, is simply not admissible. What Trotter needs to do is subpoena anyone who claims to have heard it, to actually testify themselves as to such statements, whether by deposition or open trial. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

 

I assume the alleged comment was off the cuff, rather than part of an interview.

 

It was allegedly said at a dinner.

 

The NFL interviewed everyone at said dinner and they all deny it was said (per Buffalo News).

 

The NFL failed to interview, though, the reporter who heard Terry say this at the dinner.

 

The NFL did not do their due diligence in investigating the accusation.

 

This is precisely Trotter's accusation. He is not accusing Pegula of saying these things - he is accusing the NFL of covering up an investigation (which they clearly did if the reporter who claimed to hear the account was not interviewed).

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Sorry Weo, I think that’s a distinction without a difference. For Trotter to publicly attribute these statements to Pegula is textbook hearsay since he never heard Pegula say this first hand, and as a general rule, is simply not admissible. What Trotter needs to do is subpoena anyone who claims to have heard it, to actually testify themselves as to such statements, whether by deposition or open trial. 

 

Trotter isn't really publicly declaring this.  It's buried in a suit that does not involve or name Pegula.

 

I doubt Trotter would even make much of it in the suit.  He's suing because he says they were going to renew his contract but they then didn't after he asked Goodell a question at a presser before the SB 2 years in a row.  He's not suing over the comments he alleges. 

[78thealltimegreat]

4 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Sorry Weo, I think that’s a distinction without a difference. For Trotter to publicly attribute these statements to Pegula is textbook hearsay since he never heard Pegula say this first hand, and as a general rule, is simply not admissible. What Trotter needs to do is subpoena anyone who claims to have heard it, to actually testify themselves as to such statements, whether by deposition or open trial. 

Yes you are correct it’s a secondhand story that Trotter has no one with direct knowledge to backup the story. Hearsay is inadmissible in court and this case will get laughed out but the damage is done Pegula must counter sue 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

20 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Could be, but why default to that stance?

Because all plaintiffs have the burden of proof, all defendants get presumptions of facts in their favor (bedrock due process principles)

[thenorthremembers]

Obviously if it's true he should sell the team.  That said, the actual quote is so incredibly stereotypical I can't imagine its true.   

 

If I am Pegula I sue the absolute pants off the guy and make sure he enjoys working at Taco Bell forever.

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, WEATHER DOT COM said:

 

It was allegedly said at a dinner.

 

The NFL interviewed everyone at said dinner and they all deny it was said (per Buffalo News).

 

The NFL failed to interview, though, the reporter who heard Terry say this at the dinner.

 

The NFL did not do their due diligence in investigating the accusation.

 

This is precisely Trotter's accusation. He is not accusing Pegula of saying these things - he is accusing the NFL of covering up an investigation (which they clearly did if the reporter who claimed to hear the account was not interviewed).

 

What's the over / under on the reporter Trotter is quoting actually being present at the dinner vs. having heard from someone else?

 

It's not like the press on either side of this country's political divide has anything remotely like an unblemished track record for just reporting the facts. 

 

Enough people have popped up in this thread saying they don't care if Terry actually said those exact things, he's guilty of being a white billion which makes him racist by default. 

 

And if you're of that mind set, it sure sounds like what a white racist billion would say. So there's no harm in attributing it to him. 

[Low Positive]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Trotter isn't really publicly declaring this.  It's buried in a suit that does not involve or name Pegula.

 

I doubt Trotter would even make much of it in the suit.  He's suing because he says they were going to renew his contract but they then didn't after he asked Goodell a question at a presser before the SB 2 years in a row.  He's not suing over the comments he alleges. 

Exactly. This is a small portion of the lawsuit that Florio pulled out and xcreated because it's the most sensational part of the document. It also fits his narrative of a team in collapse.

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Because all plaintiffs have the burden of proof, all defendants get presumptions of facts in their favor (bedrock due process principles)

That's a poor justification. Individuals are not a court of law, just like private enterprise is not the federal government.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Trotter isn't really publicly declaring this.  It's buried in a suit that does not involve or name Pegula.

 

I doubt Trotter would even make much of it in the suit.  He's suing because he says they were going to renew his contract but they then didn't after he asked Goodell a question at a presser before the SB 2 years in a row.  He's not suing over the comments he alleges. 

Suits = public record. He or his atty knew darn right that naming names of NFL owners would get picked up by the ESPNS of the world as well as message boards like this—no such thing as “buried” in a high profile suit. Otherwise why even insert incendiary nuggets like these??