#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Could be true. Seemed from his "tone" today that he doesn't think this case should have even made it this far (and who would disagree).Doctor G said:
So lots of questions here and in the legal forum about how the judge participating in the settlement might ultimately impact how he decides on the merits.
We don't know what Berman did or didn't do today, behind closed doors, but one thing you can imagine happening is potential discussion whether acceptance of responsibility was on the table. But mediators always want to know what are the "soft" variable that might be sticking points before they get to the hard (I don't mean difficult) issues. So, for example, in a classic mediation that's a dispute about money, before the mediator gets to talking numbers, he wants to know what else he needs to clear first, because sometimes the "soft" variables are most important. So, if one side wants a confidentiality provision, for example, and the other side doesn't want to give one, he needs to know how complicated that issue is going to be. If you feel that the side demanding no confidentiality might cave eventually, maybe when you start talking numbers you take that into account and figure you're going to have to try to get them some extra cash. Etc.
In this case, I see the hard variable as the number of games, and the soft variable to things like whether there will be any acceptance of responsibility. There was a report from one of the shitheads on twitter that the NFL is demanding that Brady agree to the findings in the Wells report. Presumably, there has been some discussion of this issue, and with Brady in the room, it's easy to imagine how it at least might have gone. Let's say Brady said, "Judge, I want to play football, but I cannot say that I had any awareness of balls being deflated (if they were), because it's just not true."
Judges are humans, and the reality is that while the judge may do his best to put settlement to the side if he's required to decide the merits, this kind of direct statement from a party is not easily ignored. The judge may very well think, "he may be bullshitting me, he may be telling the truth, I don't know." In which case it's of no moment, other than a hurdle the judge has to get over if he wants the case to settle. If, on the other hand, the judge hears this and believes it, or doesn't believe it, then it's impossible to come up with a scenario in which it doesn't creep in, in some fashion, into his decision of the case.
So, while there has been a fair amount of discussion about whether the judge would or wouldn't hold it against one side or the other if they were being difficult in settlement discussions, I thought I'd put a little more meat on the bone. It's a small point, but maybe an example of how these things can play out.
We don't know what Berman did or didn't do today, behind closed doors, but one thing you can imagine happening is potential discussion whether acceptance of responsibility was on the table. But mediators always want to know what are the "soft" variable that might be sticking points before they get to the hard (I don't mean difficult) issues. So, for example, in a classic mediation that's a dispute about money, before the mediator gets to talking numbers, he wants to know what else he needs to clear first, because sometimes the "soft" variables are most important. So, if one side wants a confidentiality provision, for example, and the other side doesn't want to give one, he needs to know how complicated that issue is going to be. If you feel that the side demanding no confidentiality might cave eventually, maybe when you start talking numbers you take that into account and figure you're going to have to try to get them some extra cash. Etc.
In this case, I see the hard variable as the number of games, and the soft variable to things like whether there will be any acceptance of responsibility. There was a report from one of the shitheads on twitter that the NFL is demanding that Brady agree to the findings in the Wells report. Presumably, there has been some discussion of this issue, and with Brady in the room, it's easy to imagine how it at least might have gone. Let's say Brady said, "Judge, I want to play football, but I cannot say that I had any awareness of balls being deflated (if they were), because it's just not true."
Judges are humans, and the reality is that while the judge may do his best to put settlement to the side if he's required to decide the merits, this kind of direct statement from a party is not easily ignored. The judge may very well think, "he may be bullshitting me, he may be telling the truth, I don't know." In which case it's of no moment, other than a hurdle the judge has to get over if he wants the case to settle. If, on the other hand, the judge hears this and believes it, or doesn't believe it, then it's impossible to come up with a scenario in which it doesn't creep in, in some fashion, into his decision of the case.
So, while there has been a fair amount of discussion about whether the judge would or wouldn't hold it against one side or the other if they were being difficult in settlement discussions, I thought I'd put a little more meat on the bone. It's a small point, but maybe an example of how these things can play out.
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't believe the list of court losses is enough leverage for the PA to extract this concession.chief1 said:
I think it is more about the PA making it a bigger issue, and possibly even taking less money as a concession for RG losing power.JayMags71 said:
No, but at some point Roger (or the owners) may want to just give it up in self-defense...JayMags71 said:
Yeah at this point why does RG even want that power? For his image? What good does it do for the owners - his only true client?Eddie Jurak said:
My question on that is, if the PA is set on that as a major area of focus, would the owners be willing to sacrifice even 1 % of revenues to keep that power with the commish?JayMags71 said:
I am struggling to understand why this would be important, at all, to the owners. Why do they care who arbitrates these cases, especially when they end up incurring millions in legal fees and going to federal court anyway?steveluck7 said:
tims4wins said:
He wants that power because it's yet another thing to use to break the NFLPA. The NFL's goal is to (pardon my language here) thoroughly fuck the NFLPA until it's broken and beaten and will do whatever it wants. More or less (GoT spoiler alert from season 4), they want the NFLPA to be Reek and they want to be Ramsey Bolton.
Isn't this doing the opposite though - isn't it creating a more united front? Seems to me like the NFLPA is going to do everything it can to strip that power in the next CBA. But that being said usually bottom line wins out and I'm not convinced the union cares enough to make money concessions.CaptainLaddie said:
Hurley: First Day In Court Goes Down As A Win For Tom Brady’s Side « CBS Boston
I'm having some formatting issues(due to spilling a beer all over my laptop), but at one point it seems like Nash made up evidence according to Hurley, saying there are texts where Brady admitted to knowledge of deflation, when in fact there were none. I dont know much about the legal system, and from what I understand they were not under oath, but could this still come back and bite the league for lying? Could this also be a huge chip if Brady goes with a defamation suit with physical proof that the league was lying to hurt his reputation?
I'm having some formatting issues(due to spilling a beer all over my laptop), but at one point it seems like Nash made up evidence according to Hurley, saying there are texts where Brady admitted to knowledge of deflation, when in fact there were none. I dont know much about the legal system, and from what I understand they were not under oath, but could this still come back and bite the league for lying? Could this also be a huge chip if Brady goes with a defamation suit with physical proof that the league was lying to hurt his reputation?
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 6s6 seconds ago
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
Making it more important just drives up the "price" of getting neutral arbitration from the NFL in the next round of negotiations, so either way, this works for the league.tims4wins said:
To understand the NFL under Goodell, you always have to think as cynically as possible.
There is no Rev said:Making it more important just drives up the "price" of getting neutral arbitration from the NFL in the next round of negotiations, so either way, this works for the league.
To understand the NFL under Goodell, you always have to think as cynically as possible.
Bingo
Right, totally agree, hence my comment that I have my doubts that the PA will give up revenue % for neutral arb. Win-win for NFL.There is no Rev said:Making it more important just drives up the "price" of getting neutral arbitration from the NFL in the next round of negotiations, so either way, this works for the league.
To understand the NFL under Goodell, you always have to think as cynically as possible.
I have to say, I come out of this hating Goodell so much and thinking he is a total piece of shit human, but now I am starting to see why the owners love him.
There is no Rev said:Making it more important just drives up the "price" of getting neutral arbitration from the NFL in the next round of negotiations, so either way, this works for the league.
To understand the NFL under Goodell, you always have to think as cynically as possible.
You know I concur.
The next lockout will cost everyone games, maybe even a season. The union starts the next round of negotiations at 75% revenue, guaranteed contracts and third-party discipline and the owners...don't. It's gonna take something otherworldly for this not to become the nastiest labor struggle in sports this century.
Management losing the right to discipline employees is not gonna fly with 31 billionaires, who already hate that they have to share some of the (revenue) pie with the hired help. And the only thing that could make the union give up on its quest for third-party discipline is guaranteed contracts.
Absolutely?Corsi said:
An accomplished lawyer to be sure, but we really have reached the point in this of opinions being like assholes. Some more attractive than others, no doubt, and some more experienced than others, to be sure -- but assholes nonetheless.
There is one kind of opinion that would move me in this case. If an individual said, "I clerked for Judge Berman for __ year(s), and based on my experience, I think he will likely rule as follows ..."
But you know what? You'll likely never hear that because that is a confidence that will never be betrayed. Omertà.
SoSH's own Chad Finn with a beacon of reason among the madness:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/08/12/tom-brady-may-may-not-vindicated-but-should-not-surrender/B3MUkcRsGM5Fk1KAJceclL/story.html?s_campaign=bcom:gigya:twitter
Who's going to blink first, the union or the owners? At some point the PA is going to have to be willing to strike/weather the lockout to the point that it hurts the owners, but there are too few players with Brady/Manning money or Gronk financial smarts. The CBA and the process is slanted in favor of the owners, who don't necessarily rely on the NFL to put a roof over their head or food on their table and the owners still earn on merchandise and sponsorships to some extent. The NFLPA would be wise to start building its war chest now to something unseen before, to help the players during a prolonged work stoppage. It won't happen and I think the players will have to choose money or neutral third party appeals (I want to be clear that I think the NFL might be willing to cede appeals but not initial punishment for player conduct) and I have little hope that the NFL won't fuck them in the CBA negotiations. The house almost always wins.soxfan121 said:
I cant see the NFLPA striking over neutral third party appeals. It affects far too few of them. It is, and always will be, about the money.
Sooo...this might be a dumb question...
If it ends up that Tom did nothing wrong, or nothing proven wrong, and all penalties are dropped...why do the Pats still lose a pick when it's based on debunked 'facts'?
That makes no sense.
If it ends up that Tom did nothing wrong, or nothing proven wrong, and all penalties are dropped...why do the Pats still lose a pick when it's based on debunked 'facts'?
That makes no sense.
Because there are a lot of NFL owners who want to see the Patriots get theirs, whether or not it is justified.brandonchristensen said:
What I'm wondering is this: let's say that Berman vacates and kicks it back down to Goodell with orders to pull his head out of his ass before he rules next time. What are the odds that Goodell doesn't pull his head out and just makes another attempt to move the goalposts and uphold the suspension? Maybe his lawyers interpret Berman's decision extremely, ridiculously narrowly and find some other dumbass reason to uphold that could, with some tortured logic, be seen as not in conflict with the letter of Berman's decision. Is that possible?
The real structural problem is the incredibly short career length for so many of the members. Giving up a year's salary is a lot to ask of these guys, and the NFLPA can't possibly build a war chest large enough to cover it--this isn't riding out a few months to get 20 years of better pay and benefits on the back end.dcdrew10 said:
It depends on the rationale given--the implicit "instructions"--is. If it's in blatant violation of them, I would expect that Berman would grant an injunction against the ruling in a heartbeat and Goodell would be faced with a new Brady legal filing in federal court after having just behaved in a manner that judges do not look kindly upon.Eddie Jurak said:
As a class, federal judges are not really fond of people with a "I do what I want!!" mentality. Well, except for federal judges.
But that doesn't really explain anything...why are the picks gone? It's not like they're a physical object that Goodell ate when he punished them. They would be getting punished SEVERELY for something that didn't actually happen. Even with a Patriot hate-on in effect, how does that not terrify the league?Eddie Jurak said:
It helps them until they don't do anything and Roger decides to dock them picks and a million dollars.BigSoxFan said:
I completely agree and like swinging val said there are so few appeals that are necessary, 2-3 per year, that it's not necessarily in the best interest of the NFLPA to make it a point of contention in the CBA and that sucks.There is no Rev said:
Brady has a good case for a case of his type. The problem is that his case type sucks.Eddie Jurak said:Well, that should be a point in Brady's favor.
When we were scrambling to fIgure out who Amber,an was and then he issued the "the earth has been sufficiently scorched" communique and the declined to keep the records confidential, well, while you never know how it's gonna go, I was pleased--we at least got a judge of theory that we want.
We got a live one. And what happened in his courtroom today would seem to bear that out. Dunno what's gonna happen, but if Brady were to ever have a chance, I think this is the kind of judge we wanted.
Eddie Jurak said:
This, for each club individually.
At NFL headquarters, most officers each identify with one of the other 31 clubs emotionally,
and logically, all can agree that knocking down a dynasty restores parity. Parity maximizes NFL profits.
For ten years the Patriots have messed with league parity, bless them.
Eddie Jurak said:
If there's any silver lining in the team punishment it's that the Pats' #1 pick last year spent practically the whole season on IR while the night french fry chef at Popeye's in West Bumfuck, Alabama, who signed as a FA last year, made one of the biggest plays in NFL history, a SB winning play at that, for the Pats.
League says they only lost because of bogus legal shenanigans, reiterates support for the findings of the Wells Report, and confirms that even if Brady did not explicitly sanction deflation it still occurred on the team's watch and therefore team punishment is 100% justified, especially considering the heinous refusal to produce McNally for a 9th interview.brandonchristensen said:
FWIW, I took it to mean more that it is "definitely something that is a possible outcome" not that it is "definitely going to happen."dcmissle said:
Think of it this way: if you're a JAG and you hit your wife or something like that, do you think you're going to get the benefit of a serious disciplinary process or is the team just going to cut you to look strong on DV issues? Because, off the top of my head, a serious disciplinary procedure is only going to protect a fraction (players who actually misbehave) of a fraction (players who matter enough to a team or are talented enough that they wouldn't get cut or would be picked back up) of a fraction (players who actually get caught).tims4wins said:
Asking the guy making the league minimum for his two year career to lose 50% of his career earnings so the superstars get better protection doesn't strike me as an easy ask. I'd guess it would be the sort of high profile but ultimately unimportant issue that would get used as a lever for other concessions for the rank and file.
Generally, statements made by lawyers in connection with litigation are protected and cannot give rise to liability. Nothing's absolute, but there's really nothing here.The Mort Report said:
Judge Berman is not going to issue a ruling that says "it is clear that no footballs were deflated". If he did, you might have a point. In fact, public sentiment would probably build to a point where the NFL is forced to return the picks. But that scenario is not going to happen because it's not what Berman is charged with deciding.brandonchristensen said:
brandonchristensen said:
Injustice happens. Texas very likely executed an innocent man.
The picks can go to the back of the line.
HriniakPosterChild said:
Comparing this to an execution is a little silly.
It's a game.
EDIT: I know you aren't comparing them that way, but that's a decision that is pretty cut and dry...no going back. This is a game where nothing was broken, and lots was taken. Nothing happens if they go back.
