#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
SamK said:
What evidence is there of this? Seems like total BS to me. The fact is, the NFL has been making money hand over fist during the Patriots' 15-year era of relative dominance. What basis is there to believe that the NFL would have made even more money if the league had rigged things so that Patriots had been less dominant over this period? Or, that such a strategy will result in the league making more profits going forward?
There's actually a strong case to be made that having a "dynasty" type of team in the league is good for business. It could be argued that it results in heightened interest in the league among casual fans/viewers. It also may be beneficial to overall ratings/viewership for there to exist a compelling "villain" for other fan bases to root against.
I have no doubt that there are numerous league personnel who actively dislike the Patriots and would love to seem them get knocked down a peg or two. But let's be honest: their desires in this regard are rooted in emotion and irrationality, not some bogus concern about the league's profitability.
What a fantastic line:
I LOVE that Kessler did not go into the science yesterday and admitted the possibility that the two yahoos cheated to help Tom. That kind of candor, and willingness to play along with the Judge's hypothetical and thought process, wins big in front of most judges. And as I think Michael Hurley pointed out, it stands in stark contrast to Nash's performance. Kessler will have the chance to make the science points and reiterate that they do not believe the balls were deflated. But yesterday he won by not doing that.
I'm trying to remind myself that Judges are often the toughest on the side they plan to rule for. Because other than that, and of course the pesky home court advantage the CBA gives Goodell, the tea leaves from yesterday are damned positive.
I LOVE that Kessler did not go into the science yesterday and admitted the possibility that the two yahoos cheated to help Tom. That kind of candor, and willingness to play along with the Judge's hypothetical and thought process, wins big in front of most judges. And as I think Michael Hurley pointed out, it stands in stark contrast to Nash's performance. Kessler will have the chance to make the science points and reiterate that they do not believe the balls were deflated. But yesterday he won by not doing that.
I'm trying to remind myself that Judges are often the toughest on the side they plan to rule for. Because other than that, and of course the pesky home court advantage the CBA gives Goodell, the tea leaves from yesterday are damned positive.
TheoShmeo said:
It's good to be in front of a real judge. Roger Goodell and his team of assholes would have spun Kessler's concession as 1) a definitive admission that balls were, in fact, deflated by Patriots' employees, 2) obviously this could not happen without the knowledge and approval of the QB, and 3) a confession that Brady spearheaded a cover up ("his own lawyer admits his noncooperation").
Trying again with this thread/poll.
The point is to get the pulse of SoSH's confidence level at this point.
One outcome that seems possible is Berman enjoining the imposition of the penalty pending trial.* That seems like a possible reason for taking the third option, and it also seems very much like a victory for Tom given when a trial may take place and conclude (other than having to participate in it).
* And by trial I mean any future hearings, including a full blown trial (which I think Berman's comments opened may have opened the door for).
The point is to get the pulse of SoSH's confidence level at this point.
One outcome that seems possible is Berman enjoining the imposition of the penalty pending trial.* That seems like a possible reason for taking the third option, and it also seems very much like a victory for Tom given when a trial may take place and conclude (other than having to participate in it).
* And by trial I mean any future hearings, including a full blown trial (which I think Berman's comments opened may have opened the door for).
I presume that Theo is referring only to a decision on the merits after a fuller briefing and putting this matter at the bottom of the list of cases that he has to consider. Thus the possible 2-year delay to which he referred yesterday.
I voted that he would vacate the NFL's ruling, but it's pretty close to a 50-50 probability in my mind.
I voted that he would vacate the NFL's ruling, but it's pretty close to a 50-50 probability in my mind.
Koufax presumes correctly.
One possible outcome is that Berman enjoins the imposition of the penalty pending a trial on the merits where facts such as whether Brady was actually aware of and participated in the deflation of balls before the Colts game are explored.
I don't know how likely that is given the issue, in my view, is more around Goodell's powers under the CBA, and the fact that there is no motion now before Berman for a TRO/injuncitve relief. But Berman himself seemed to open that door.,
One possible outcome is that Berman enjoins the imposition of the penalty pending a trial on the merits where facts such as whether Brady was actually aware of and participated in the deflation of balls before the Colts game are explored.
I don't know how likely that is given the issue, in my view, is more around Goodell's powers under the CBA, and the fact that there is no motion now before Berman for a TRO/injuncitve relief. But Berman himself seemed to open that door.,
Given the consensus that Berman is trying to get the parties to resolve this so as to not waste the court's time, it seems illogical to think that Berman would turn around and order a trial when that isn't even one of the options in front of him.
I don't think we should read too much into Berman hammering the NFL yesterday. I'm taking on face value the idea that he wants to settle, and in terms of getting a settlement it makes sense to work on the league. As Steph Stradley points out: http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-faqs-settlement/
Four games vs zero games seems like an impasse, but the four games is arbitrary while Brady wanting zero games obviously isn't. If Berman can create enough doubt in the NFL's mind that they come down to two games without require any concessions from the NFLPA/Brady, now we're at a point where the sides are close enough to potentially work something out (one game, zero games with large fine, two preseason games, etc.).
Hammering the NFL on the facts related to that case, not necessarily what he will be ruling on, maintains mystery as to which way Berman would rule for both sides. It also makes the NFL look publicly stupid. If the NFL is digging in just based on ego, Berman dredging this stuff up in an open forum sends the message, "Hey, you're not going to save any face by sticking with four games. You might win, but you will still look dumb. And you might lose, and then you definitely look dumb."
Four games vs zero games seems like an impasse, but the four games is arbitrary while Brady wanting zero games obviously isn't. If Berman can create enough doubt in the NFL's mind that they come down to two games without require any concessions from the NFLPA/Brady, now we're at a point where the sides are close enough to potentially work something out (one game, zero games with large fine, two preseason games, etc.).
Hammering the NFL on the facts related to that case, not necessarily what he will be ruling on, maintains mystery as to which way Berman would rule for both sides. It also makes the NFL look publicly stupid. If the NFL is digging in just based on ego, Berman dredging this stuff up in an open forum sends the message, "Hey, you're not going to save any face by sticking with four games. You might win, but you will still look dumb. And you might lose, and then you definitely look dumb."
Berman:
NFL-you got nothing on Brady, you knew you had nothing on Brady, but that didn't stop you from going after him
Brady-you really shouldn't have fried the phone
Decision: punts: tells NFL to figure out a penalty consistent with above and to not fuck it up again
or he will have another discussion with them
Brady cuts a $50k check and signs a football for the Judge's grandkids
NFL-you got nothing on Brady, you knew you had nothing on Brady, but that didn't stop you from going after him
Brady-you really shouldn't have fried the phone
Decision: punts: tells NFL to figure out a penalty consistent with above and to not fuck it up again
or he will have another discussion with them
Brady cuts a $50k check and signs a football for the Judge's grandkids
I can't read Berman simply from the fact that he pressured Nash. As noted, it's a mistake to put too much weight on that, plus we don't know what went on in chambers.I conjecture that if he was convinced by the NFL's position that this is an arb/there's nothing there, he wouldn't have had to dig too far into the direct evidence line of inquiry. That bespeaks at least a curiosity about how Goodell came to the conclusion he did. Plus, I think Kessler did himself a service by confessing that there was at least a mistaken refusal to cooperate, but I don't know how Berman will react to the finger-pointing at Yee. Even if he doesn't like it, it won't be decisive, and Berman now has a path open to helping them structure an exit - if they want to..
The disparity in time suggests he pretty well knows what TB's case is, but is at least curious about the way the NFL handled this mess. I tilt slightly in favor of issuing a prelim, docketing this on a fuller fact finding. To get there, he needs to find a rationale for disregarding the presumption, which he can get to by determining that in an unusual process like this, where there's a merger of roles, the arbitrator is under a heightened duty of neutrality (not impartiality) and there needs to be fact-finding about that.
I don't think either party wants more fact finding.
The disparity in time suggests he pretty well knows what TB's case is, but is at least curious about the way the NFL handled this mess. I tilt slightly in favor of issuing a prelim, docketing this on a fuller fact finding. To get there, he needs to find a rationale for disregarding the presumption, which he can get to by determining that in an unusual process like this, where there's a merger of roles, the arbitrator is under a heightened duty of neutrality (not impartiality) and there needs to be fact-finding about that.
I don't think either party wants more fact finding.
I think everyone is overthinking here. To the lawyers who doubt, I understand, I truly do. But....
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 13h13 hours ago
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 13h13 hours ago
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
HriniakPosterChild said:
Keep in mind the Pats penalty may relate to actions McNally and Jastrezemski took, as team employees, even if Brady was not directly involved. The only Berman ruling that could really make that penalty look silly is a factual finding that the balls were not deflated, which is highly unlikely to occur---he isn't doing a true factual review, he really only has the evidence in the record to say 'no evidence of' not 'did not occur', and he doesn't need to get near that finding to deal with the matter before him
So, while it blows I think the only scenario that impacts the draft picks here is if the owners collectively decide to clip RG's wings because of this, and either RG dials back the penalty or loses his job and the next guy does the right thing. I wouldn't be betting on either of those.
You may be right.Average Reds said:
But I think he is trying to pressure settlement for reasons in addition to not wasting his time. Those reasons likely include that it's a difficult legal issue (role of the CBA under these facts), it's relatively trivial (sports as opposed to the real life problems Berman deals with regularly), the adults in the room SHOULD find a way to resolve this (fixing on an agreed amount of games and a dollar number should not be that hard), and a general predilection shared by most Judges in favor of settlement. Plus, Berman might view this as something that he really cannot decide without more facts.
Yes. Many successful leagues have single teams and players that get marketed heavily. The NBA with Jordan and the Bulls was at peak profitability. The Yankees are a national (and international) marketing presence. Same with Man Utd, Real Madrid, etc.Gorton Fisherman said:
It's hard to know whether the total pie gets bigger with strong parity, or with a handful of successful teams that become marketing heroes. But the examples we have show that the second model can be very successful.
It's tough reading tea leaves on what Brady wants, but it's tough for me seeing Brady agree to any suspension. I get the sense he'd rather be suspended for four games, and be able to say "this is bullshit", rather than take a single game suspension willingly, even if the single game doesn't come with an admission of guilt.Super Nomario said:
That's why I'm not optimistic about a settlement.
You keep saying this, so a couple of things:TheoShmeo said:
1. Why do you keep denigrating the notion that the money and the games may not be important here, to either party, with the statement that the "adults in the room" should be able to figure it out?
2. If you're right and it's so easy to come to an agreement, what's the correct number of games and amount of money and why hasn't that happened yet?
In other words, isn't it likely that the failure up to now to come to an agreement on a number of games and fine amount indicates that the real clash is about something else, something far less susceptible to settlement? Or is that failure (and everything we're hearing about its basis) merely posturing to get more nickles and dimes?
What exactly is Brady hiding from at this point? He has maintained his innocence, had personal emails combed and criticized by the public, and has taken punch after punch from the NFL's PR and False Information department. He was also subject to a massive investigation, the results of which were publicly released. Outside of the appeals transcript, the NFL has been able to hide and evade everything else.Otis Foster said:
I maintain that Tom Brady and the NFLPA would be doing backflips over a ruling for discovery/fact-finding. Why do you think the NFL claimed privilege as it pertains to Wells? Why did Goodell lie about Brady's testimony and then leak that Brady wanted the record sealed, despite the opposite being true? Why did the NFL leak false information to Mort and then fail to correct it for 4 months? The NFL is terrified of the truth, and has everything to lose. Much of the country thinks Brady's a cheater already, so what does he have to lose, particularly of he's objectively innocent?
If the judge orders what you have suggested, the NFL will rush to settle and Brady won't serve a game. I think the pertinent question is whether Brady/the NFLPA would even let the NFL off that easy, or whether Brady would push them to allow the NFL's internal documents to see the light of day. Brady has every right to be pissed and want blood, and I wouldn't blame him one bit if he went for it.
I was throwing out possible rationales for the Judge pushing settlement...not me.Myt1 said:
It is possible that the Judge, when advocating settlement, could view the few moving pieces (games, money, admission of liability) as being such that reasonable adults could find common ground.
And I should emphasize that the other points I mentioned for Berman favoring settlement were just as, if not more, important.
I want Tom to settle because I want him to de-risk the 4 game potential. I take your point that he might not care about that nearly as much as I think that he does. I disagree but, as we have both acknowledged, we're both just speculating.
PS: My assumption is that they have not settled largely because Tom wont admit culpability (as he should not) and Goodell is not particularly motivated to settle. If he settles, I suspect a large percentage of the rich, white guys who pay his blushworthy salary will be unamused, and will be a lot less hacked off if the Judge vacates. "I took the wicked Brady to the mat boys; the Judge just got in wrong."
I never gave my prediction, so I will. Mine is similar to yours, but I think he will rule that any punishment handed to Brady MUST be in line with the bargained for equipment violation. He will also allow for some non-compliance fine for the cell phone similar to Favre's. So maybe the NFL pushes it with a 150k fine, but Brady/NFLPA don't really want to go through the effort and resources to challenge and just accept it. I am torn on if I think he'll allow Goodell to take it back, or if he forces a neutral. I also think he will order, in any subsequent appeals hearing, the NFL must allow Brady/NFLPA to access information from the Wells Report investigation, and order that the NFLPA be given fair time to refute any punishments (more than four hours).drleather2001 said:
Thinking it through, maybe the NFL keeps the fine on the lower side to something Brady accepts, which keeps Kessler from getting his hands on Wells' record.
Ed Hillel said:
Why do you think the NFLPA agreed with the NFL and requested a finding based on the arbitration record? Just because they were seeking an expedited ruling? I would love to see more discovery, and found it odd that the NFLPA agreed with NFL to request a ruling without it.
Your last paragragp asks the right question and hints at the real agenda. The real clash seems to be reputational: Roger's v Tom's , or Roger's power and prestige and standing with the owners v Tom's legacy. Its not about psi that may or may not have been leaked in a bathroom on a cold Janaury afternoon.Myt1 said:
I don't think I saw this posted anywhere, but I think it's a good summation of why Brady cannot settle on anything that admits guilt.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/this-is-why-tom-brady-can-t-surrender-under-nfl-s-strict-settlement-terms-230207113.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/this-is-why-tom-brady-can-t-surrender-under-nfl-s-strict-settlement-terms-230207113.html
Ed Hillel said:
Exactly. If the truth ever came out that the NFL set this up and framed Brady, the Patriots then Goodell, Vincent, Pash, Kensil and others are going to likely lose their jobs over it.
I think that even though he knows the penalty is total bullshit he upholds it because of the CBA, but also makes it clear that Roger is a piece of shit.
I'm still in the vacate and remand with instructions on following law of shop, neutral arbitrator or lines on Goodell as to how to handle certain issues (privilege, time limit, etc).
This is a great interview of yet another clueless media member.
http://media.weei.com/a/108244424/chris-chase-didn-t-read-the-wells-report-8-13-15.htm
http://media.weei.com/a/108244424/chris-chase-didn-t-read-the-wells-report-8-13-15.htm
Could the judge rule that while the CBA does allow for the commissioner to arbitrate, Roger Goodell is so ignorant of how to properly conduct an arbitration hearing that he must appoint neutral arbitrators from now on until a new commissioner is in his place, or the CBA is changed?
The NFL dreads further discovery. No argument.
TB? I don't know. He wants blood, and should, but after a while litigation becomes a headache for non-lawyers. Unanticipated things turn up in discovery that change the equation. So, maybe he doesn't fear discovery right now, but that can change.
That's why I think Berman will leave them at the bottom of the docket until they figure a way out for themselves.
TB? I don't know. He wants blood, and should, but after a while litigation becomes a headache for non-lawyers. Unanticipated things turn up in discovery that change the equation. So, maybe he doesn't fear discovery right now, but that can change.
That's why I think Berman will leave them at the bottom of the docket until they figure a way out for themselves.
That's an idiotic interview. Completely idiotic.RedOctober3829 said:
But I would add that Chris Chase is probably representative of the majority opinion in the country. Brady is guilty and any argument to the contrary are really just lawyer games. Sad, but true.
I voted vacates but I have a healthy amount of fear that Berman does exactly what Glen and loshjott said...though I don't have a lot of hope for the corresponding lecture of Goodell in that instance. I think he would be more, um, tidy. Hands are tied, CBA rules, etc.
Mouth vomit.
Mouth vomit.
RedOctober3829 said:
That reads like he's been dropping acid the last 3 days. I gave up about line 10.
TheoShmeo said:
I could definitely see him saying something like, the evidence against Brady is incredibly tenuous at best, and if there was no CBA and this case was in front of me I would have a very difficult time justifying a penalty. However, the reality is that there is a CBA and neither party violated its terms based on my reading of the relevant sections, and therefore I have no choice but to defer to the arbitration decision.
TheoShmeo said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but if the case can be disposed of on that fundamental basis, why spend so much time probing the merits? Does he some how believe that he can make inquiry sufficient to determine if there's any basis in fact to support the determination before deferring?
That's hardly an efficient use of judicial time if there's a simple way out.
Mr. Idiot Kravitz presenting the Straw Man that the every media member who doesn't believe Brady likes to cling to.
“If he had come out early and said, ‘Look, we weren’t trying to do any funny business, it kind of happened that way. We made it low. Maybe we stepped over the line a little bit, it was not intentional. My bad. It won’t happen again.’ I think this thing would have been over in about 10 minutes,” he added. “I really do
I'm sorry Mr. Kravitz but like Mortenson insisting if he hadn't provided the PSI context for deflated, things would have been the same ,this position represents a willful ignorance of the realities of the story at the time.
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/08/13/bob-kravitz-on-dc-tom-brady-has-acted-like-a-guilty-person/
“If he had come out early and said, ‘Look, we weren’t trying to do any funny business, it kind of happened that way. We made it low. Maybe we stepped over the line a little bit, it was not intentional. My bad. It won’t happen again.’ I think this thing would have been over in about 10 minutes,” he added. “I really do
I'm sorry Mr. Kravitz but like Mortenson insisting if he hadn't provided the PSI context for deflated, things would have been the same ,this position represents a willful ignorance of the realities of the story at the time.
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/08/13/bob-kravitz-on-dc-tom-brady-has-acted-like-a-guilty-person/
Maybe it goes to whether the essence of the CBA was violated. Maybe he needs to measure the extent of Goodell's perfidy. Maybe he does some of this probing and then concludes Goodell is an utter scumbag but his behavior did not go so far as to violate the essence. Or some such thing. Maybe.Otis Foster said:
Sure:jimbobim said:
If bob kraft is a true man of integrity he will take it out of the leagues hands and fire belichick. Not holding my breath
— Bob Kravitz (@bkravitz) January 21, 2015
jimbobim said:
I am so sick of this line of thinking. Do these people remember what the 2 weeks leading up to the Super Bowl were like and how on the defensive the Patriots were while dealing with incorrect facts? If they had admitted to anything who knows what would have happened. It's not like a full investigation that found anything beyond more probably than not general awareness was punished with any sense of reason or logic.
Max Stendahl @MaxLaw360 6m6 minutes ago
Just went to Judge Berman's courtroom. Was told to leave -- there's a private settlement conference going on in the NFL-Brady case.
Just went to Judge Berman's courtroom. Was told to leave -- there's a private settlement conference going on in the NFL-Brady case.
The article they referred to was in the pimp spot on MSN.com. After reading the article, I thought I had a gauge at how stupid this guy is. The interview took it to a whole new level.RedOctober3829 said: