If true, I wonder if this reflects Kessler's concern about the likely outcome. For all of our navel-gazing, the trial team has the benefit of first hand observation, plus very deep research on legal issues.J.McG said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I don't think so. I think it is a legitimate offer of settlement and they know they are making it to a side that hasn't budged one bit, so it was unlikely to be accepted. Brady comes across as the party who is willing to move to effect a settlement and the other side is what we thought they were (for lack of a better phrase). I don't think it reflects actual strength of position, but Brady's desire to put this behind him and move on. He's not going to admit to something he didn't do, and he's not interested in the additional 2 years this might take if either side appeals to the next level.Otis Foster said:
Seriously. They have to know that offer was going nowhere. It's actually the reason why I believe no settlement was ever going to happen. If it was an issue of games and dollars, then middle ground could reasonably be found. But the NFL is asking Brady to accept the Wells Report and admit guilt. Brady won't do that. So essentially any settlement requested on his side is going to be strictly for non cooperation, which means the NFL has to reject the Wells Report, something which, more than a loss in court, is dangerous to Goodell's standing with the owners.PaulinMyrBch said:
If Brady accepts a game (or two), then the language better be iron clad that it is solely for non-cooperation. There cannot be a hair of wiggle room to let the NFL spin the finding as anything other than a penalty for non-cooperation and a full setting aside of the findings of the Wells Report (even if that isn't explicit in the Settlement), because if there is, he will have disastrously lost this war.
It is a lot of fun to negotiate against (the key word) someone you KNOW will behave like a madman. You can make lots of painful to you offers that will never be accepted.
RG is going in for the big win. It is inconceivable to me that he is flying solo. Owners -- plural -- are behind him and maybe pushing him.
RG is going in for the big win. It is inconceivable to me that he is flying solo. Owners -- plural -- are behind him and maybe pushing him.
I disagree, at least with respect to the people actually paying attention and to whom facts matter. I really don't care about those losers who want to brand him a cheater. If the suspension settlement makes clear that the Wells report is effectively disavowed, but because Brady did not turn over his phone, he is serving a suspension for 1 game, then history will be clear. No cheating but non-cooperation and RG was a megalomaniacal fool.BigSoxFan said:
Well, should Berman hand Brady a favorable outcome, safe to say at least part of the NFL's spin will be that Brady himself was willing to accept a suspension, so he's clearly guilty. He just got off on a technicality because of an unforeseen loophole in the CBA that allowed players to escape punishment for cheating.
Isn't it like 98% likely that Schefter is getting a leak from NFL side, not NFLPA side? They have plenty of reason to leak that Brady is willing to accept a suspension.
A little hard to imagine the NFLPA signing off on a suspension for failing to turn over a cell phone ,and they'd have to.
Those things said, without knowing what Berman has told them in private, it's also impossible to judge any settlement here...Berman can put a heavy thumb on the assessment scale for either party.
A little hard to imagine the NFLPA signing off on a suspension for failing to turn over a cell phone ,and they'd have to.
Those things said, without knowing what Berman has told them in private, it's also impossible to judge any settlement here...Berman can put a heavy thumb on the assessment scale for either party.
I don't see why team Brady would leak this. What would be the advantage? To show they are being reasonable in settlement talks? The only person that needs to know that is Berman, who gets a front row seat. I can't see any advantage coming for Brady from this leak.
My natural reaction is that the NFL put this out there to make Brady look weak. But I don't think the story reads that way and it came from Schefter. After all the BS with this story, mort being clowned, etc... I would think Schefter would not want to touch NFL leaks. Guy seems like too much of a pro for that.
I guess it could be a random 3rd party leaking it. But I'm just confused why this was put out there. Every leak in this whole saga has had a purpose. I can't see the purpose behind this one.
My natural reaction is that the NFL put this out there to make Brady look weak. But I don't think the story reads that way and it came from Schefter. After all the BS with this story, mort being clowned, etc... I would think Schefter would not want to touch NFL leaks. Guy seems like too much of a pro for that.
I guess it could be a random 3rd party leaking it. But I'm just confused why this was put out there. Every leak in this whole saga has had a purpose. I can't see the purpose behind this one.
There's no way RG could accept that offer because it's fucking insane. A player who has never been in trouble ever is going to be suspended a game for not turning over his private cell phone about an investigation into air mysteriously disappearing from some footballs. Yet, RIce got just one more game for knocking out his girlfriend. If there's one game RG knows how to win, it's PR.
Bleedred said:
Which is an incredibly small amount of the population (those to whom facts matter). I have said all along, if Brady is innocent, there is absolutely no way he should settle for a suspension. Big fine? Sure, but Goodell and company have literally lied all the way through. As a Patriots fan, it would be tough to see Brady miss 4 games, but as someone who would never tolerate untrue accusations and settling, fuck the NFL, hold firm Brady.
I'm 1000% with you about not agreeing to a suspension. I'd hate it if he did. But at the same time, I really don't care about the population that doesn't care about facts. I've been pretty successful talking about DG with assholes and non-assholes alike when I state at the beginning: "listen, I'm happy to talk about DG, provided you actually want to have a conversation about the facts of the case. If you want to call him a cheater and yell cheatriots, that's fine, but let's not discuss it then." It's turned most conversations into decent onesSportsbstn said:
Why would Brady concede that a refusal to hand over his personal phone (or computer, or diary, or sperm) is worthy of a suspension when that precedent has never been set. It goes against the bigger issue - players' rights under the CBA.
Hasn't this case essentially devolved into a contention by the Commissioner of Football that he can define any act as "detrimental" to the game at his own whim, issue unprecedented punishment and then arbitrate his own decision (the investigation, the conclusion, the punishment) without answering to anyone? Why would Brady facilitate that?
And why isn't 100% of the NFLPA speaking out in favor of his stance and backing him up?
Hasn't this case essentially devolved into a contention by the Commissioner of Football that he can define any act as "detrimental" to the game at his own whim, issue unprecedented punishment and then arbitrate his own decision (the investigation, the conclusion, the punishment) without answering to anyone? Why would Brady facilitate that?
And why isn't 100% of the NFLPA speaking out in favor of his stance and backing him up?
geoduck no quahog said:
When Cedric Maxwell went into the stands in Philly to throttle an abusive fan, the Sixers players led by Darryl Dawkins jumped in to separate Max from the crowd and defuse the situation. If an NFL player were to get in a tussle with opposing fans in the stands, I get the impression NFL players would enjoy watching their rival get his butt kicked.
Otis Foster said:
This is the 2nd time we hear leaks about Brady willing to accept a suspension. The first time; Brady is willing to accept a suspension, but wants the appeal hearing transcript sealed.
I don't buy the leak. There's literally 0 reason for Brady to accept even a game for non cooperation. There's nothing to lose at this point. I'd honestly rather have Brady be suspended all four and showcase what a laughing stock the NFL is then miss a single game by giving in to this corrupt system. But, if Brady did say 'hey I'll do a game for non cooperation if we can move on', why wouldn't the NFL take it? Why wouldn't this whole matter just be settled at this point so the NFL can have some win here? There's just no way this happened.
dcmissle said:
This also benefits Brady. Berman has been pushing settlement and if Brady knows Roger won't accept anything less than a guilty confession, then Brady can say he's willing to take a suspension to show how he is being reasonable.
I disagree with the "nothing to lose" refrain in this thread. I'm sure Brady does not like the idea of missing any playing time, especially given his age. Now, it's certainly possible that other considerations are more important to him--such as refusing to admit any rule violation for noncooperation or otherwise--but he certainly has something to lose by rolling the dice on Berman.Seels said:
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/new-england-patriots-tom-brady-very-angry-over-settlement-stalemate
Some interesting points made here.
"He's not happy," said Zolak. "The Wells Report is getting shoved down his throat and he doesn't like it. And he's not signing off on it. Ever."
According to Zolak, Brady feels that "acceptance of a single game . . . [is] an admission of guilt."
That puts the earlier leak about him willing to accept any suspension in question.
Zolak also refuted the report by the Boston Globe that the NFL has more evidence against Brady that it hasn't released.
"[Brady] knows [the NFL] has nothing else," said Zolak. "This Ben Volin report regarding a smoking gun or this big bomb that the NFL's hanging onto? If they [had] something, they would have dropped that by now and this thing would have been over."
I don't get the Globe online because I'm scared I'll see the cartoon picture of CHB. What report is he talking about?
Some interesting points made here.
"He's not happy," said Zolak. "The Wells Report is getting shoved down his throat and he doesn't like it. And he's not signing off on it. Ever."
According to Zolak, Brady feels that "acceptance of a single game . . . [is] an admission of guilt."
That puts the earlier leak about him willing to accept any suspension in question.
Zolak also refuted the report by the Boston Globe that the NFL has more evidence against Brady that it hasn't released.
"[Brady] knows [the NFL] has nothing else," said Zolak. "This Ben Volin report regarding a smoking gun or this big bomb that the NFL's hanging onto? If they [had] something, they would have dropped that by now and this thing would have been over."
I don't get the Globe online because I'm scared I'll see the cartoon picture of CHB. What report is he talking about?
OilCanShotTupac said:
I think it was supposed to read as "There's no way TB could accept..."
Believe this was the "the earth being sufficiently scorched" comment.WayBackVazquez said:
Timing of the Zolak article is interesting given that it came out right after the Schefter report.
Probably worth noting that Schefter never tweeted out the new info re: Brady's willingness to accept a suspension, nor has he updated his original ESPN dot com story from this afternoon to reflect this. He absolutely said it on the 6PM edition of SportsCenter, however.
Few, if any, other reporters seem to have picked up on it for whatever reason, so not sure if it remains unconfirmed or what. Schefter seems to have been more keyed in w/ the Brady camp through all this, so I'd tend to think this info came from Brady rather than the league office, but who knows.
I've yet to find any video of Scefter's SC appearance online yet, so I guess the next primetime SC airing at 11PM bears watching to see if the report is either replayed or if Schefter makes a follow-up appearance.
Few, if any, other reporters seem to have picked up on it for whatever reason, so not sure if it remains unconfirmed or what. Schefter seems to have been more keyed in w/ the Brady camp through all this, so I'd tend to think this info came from Brady rather than the league office, but who knows.
I've yet to find any video of Scefter's SC appearance online yet, so I guess the next primetime SC airing at 11PM bears watching to see if the report is either replayed or if Schefter makes a follow-up appearance.
It's literally the first thing in Berman's directive after taking over the case:WayBackVazquez said:
Van Everyman said:It's literally the first thing in Berman's directive after taking over the case:
That. Is. Not. A. Gag. Order.
hoothehoo said:
A gag order is a direct order from the court commanding the parties not to speak to the press. These are disfavored, and in fact, in the Second Circuit (where this case is venued) are presumptively invalid. Such orders are usually given to protect trade secrets, state secrets, or prevent the jury pool from being contaminated. No such issues are present here. There is no gag order.
The owners after Rice, Peterson and Hardy know they can't wait for the legal system to finish before the League and teams act--they've beefed up their investigative unit, but they lack subpoena power. So cooperation is suddenly a big deal--to them and the union. Taking even one game for lack of sooperation is precedent-setting. I think the NFLPA would discourage it unless Berman is strongly signalling bad news to them.
Ok, then, what is the material difference between what Berman wrote and an official gag order?WayBackVazquez said:
As an aside, not sure it is worth being this strident over in the non-lawyers thread.
Edit: answered above but the latter point still applies. Let's tone down the rhetoric shall we?
Van Everyman said:
All he said in that order was to tone down the rhetoric. He was instructing the lawyers to ease up on the name calling and accusations in their briefs, and before the court. He was not revoking their First Amendment rights.
Was I being strident in responding to your incorrect assertion that a gag order was "literally the first thing" in Berman's order? Sorry.
I believe Zolak when he says there's absolutely no chance of him accepting even one game--so this is an NFL leak to make it look like Brady in negotiations is acting guilty. Goebbels is running the NFL media strategy.
This guy is losing his mind on Twitter trying to get everyone to confirm this:
https://twitter.com/MikeGasior/status/633762797042704384
I'm not buying it to say the least.
https://twitter.com/MikeGasior/status/633762797042704384
I'm not buying it to say the least.
https://twitter.com/MikeGasior/status/633762797042704384NortheasternPJ said:
link to tweet
I'm not buying it to say the least.
How the hell does he have over 100k followers?
NortheasternPJ said:
https://www.twitteraudit.com/ (not sure on reliability) says 80% of his followers are fake.
Pretty hilarious tweet from his past:
Mike Gasior @MikeGasior Mar 31
@Espngreeny You're crazy. I'm a better golfer than you Mike (I listen regularly) and I'm playing with Jordan and Brady every time.
Bullshit or not, I think we can all agree that that is the best case scenario and what should have happened 7 months ago if Roger hadn't gone off the rails.
False reports have been a driving factor in this whole mess. Can we not contribute to it by posting random unconfirmed tweets?
SemperFidelisSox said:
He's been retweeted by multiple media members in Boston including Gerry Callahan and James Stewart. Not saying they are great sources, but this is a message board. We're not a media outlet.
I posted in the initial post that I didn't believe it but he's being retweeted by people in media at least.
Posting a tweet or something here isn't contributing to anything. I think people around here give SoSH way more weight than it actually carries.