#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
There are 3733 posts in this topic, which I believe is the third thread on this topic, from people with no demonstrated knowledge of the situation. At least no more knowledge outside of what has been posted in public forums across the web.
DrewDawg said:
Exactly right. I mean, I scarcely even know what to say...
Here's the thing. I know people just banter and use terms loosely and shit, which is sorta why people get annoyed with lawyers who seem so pedantic at times. The thing is, what feels like pedantry is the precision required when words can ultimately be backed up by the sanction of the state.
A judge requesting you to cool it and telling you that if you don't zip it you will be legally punished are very different things. Frankly, I understand WBV's exasperation. I mean, one of the parties violating an actual gag order at this stage would be enormous.
As long as we're dealing with the legal realm, these distinctions matter. And if people could at least appreciate that the accomplished attorneys who are effectively volunteering their time to educate this forum might know something about this law shit, that would be cool too, yeah?
Dude, you told someone who has been practicing for a decade that there was a gag order. When he told you there wasn't, you told him it was, linked a picture of it, and then said that it was "literally the first thing," Berman did. What color is that kettle?Van Everyman said:
I understand that everything about this case is the most anything ever, and heaven forbid if somebody doesn't immediately fall into line with every possible complaint against the NFL, but how you gonna tell the guy you were just a jerk--and wrong--to to tone down the rhetoric?
Schefter reiterated his report on 10PM Sports Center, clearly stating Brady is willing to accept a suspension if it means no admission of guilt, no acceptance of Wells Report findings. This time there was an emphasis on his willingness to sit out game(s), plural, where the initial report left the acceptable length of suspension unspecified.
My takeaway - Brady's willing to trade at least 2 games in exchange for his exoneration, but will never get it now that the NFL has backed itself into a corner by doubling down on its support of the Wells Report at every possible juncture. There's really no turning back now for the NFL.
Also didn't get the sense Schefter is buying what Mike Gasior is selling.
My takeaway - Brady's willing to trade at least 2 games in exchange for his exoneration, but will never get it now that the NFL has backed itself into a corner by doubling down on its support of the Wells Report at every possible juncture. There's really no turning back now for the NFL.
Also didn't get the sense Schefter is buying what Mike Gasior is selling.
I'm not taking away anything other than Brady is willing to cut a deal and the NFL isn't. You can spin that any way you want, but I prefer to take it at face value and see what happens tomorrow.
IANAL, but I think Brady's reported willingness to take a game or more in exchange for exoneration may be more strategic ploy than a concession made on the weakness of his case, knowing full well there's no way Goodell's moving off his demand that Brady admit guilt/accept Wells Report. Similar to Kessler last week admitting Brady could have better handled Wells' request for his phone/texts. Brady again appears to be the one open to compromise, while the NFL refuses to budge an inch.
I'm not reading too much into Schefter's report yet, considering today's settlement talks are being universally reported as having gone nowhere and Schefter's report hasn't made waves anywhere else. Not to mention Berman wasn't even present today.
EDIT: addressed Rev's below concerns.
I'm not reading too much into Schefter's report yet, considering today's settlement talks are being universally reported as having gone nowhere and Schefter's report hasn't made waves anywhere else. Not to mention Berman wasn't even present today.
EDIT: addressed Rev's below concerns.
I don't believe a word this guy says, but I enjoyed this tweet regardless...
https://twitter.com/MikeGasior/status/633812108304584704
https://twitter.com/MikeGasior/status/633812108304584704
J.McG said:
Appreciated. These are not normal times on this issue and we've had several instances of someone using sloppy language or misreading something that had then led to posts coming hand over fist that concern something that doesn't even exist.
There's nothing wrong with a little entertainment in this beast of a thread. That alleged settlement is so ridiculous that no one should take it seriously. The NFL would roll the dice on a judge's ruling - even if they didn't like their chances - before accepting that deal.E5 Yaz said:
Unless, of course, the agreement states that it is not precedential. I'd imagine the NFLPA would require such a stipulation before agreeing to anything more than a nominal fine.lambeau said:
If you were D Smith would you accept 'non precedenital' and believe it would not be, in a system where RG is the prosecutor and the judge? Awful tough to do so I think.djbayko said:
Because he doesn't want to miss 4 games at this stage of his career, a result that is very possible if he doesn't settle or holds firm at a fine only. Maybe it's something as simple as, "I've seen Jimmy G play. I don't want to start one of the last seasons of my career 0-4 and I'm willing to eat some shit to avoid that. Besides, most people have already made up their minds anyway. Now they'll just call me a cheater in capital letters on Twitter. But why should I or anyone else give a flying shit what those idiots or Bob Kravitz, or Drunk Jimmy Irsay thinks of ME. I'm the one with a handful of Super Bowl rings and I'm not done yet."
To me, that would be a perfectly rational and reasonable position for Brady to take.
Easy for you (us) to say.
I'm agnostic on the leak, although there are more than 0 reasons for Brady to accept a one-game suspension. There is a lot to lose if he doesn't. Beyond the 4 games for Brady, a federal judge saying, "yeah, Goodell can do this," is a pretty big risk for the NFLPA vs. a settlement agreement into which Brady and the NFLPA would have a say on the language.
Everything is easy for us to say. It's easy for us to say, "Hey TB12, your rep and legacy are SHOT, just get back on the field!"
Question for the group: I hear a lot of people saying Brady doesn't want this to drag on for two more years... I understand why from a "distractions" perspective... but if he was guaranteed an injunction and knew he wouldn't miss a single game over the next two years, wouldn't that be a "decent" outcome? Even if he ended up losing, I would rather lose 4 games of Brady at age 40 than age 38. And if it does drag another two years, I can't imagine that he would be a huge part of the proceedings - lawyers, is that a correct assumption, or totally off base? - so it may not actually be a huge distraction if the case is just "tied up in the courts".
So why would the NFL be so insistent on Brady accepting the Wells report?
PR? I don't see it. If Brady misses any games it will just reinforce to most that Brady is guilty.
To justify the Wells report to the other owners? I have to think most owners don't care if Brady agrees to it. I have to think most would prefer it to go away at this point and would consider any suspension a win.
Confident they can give the NFLPA a big defeat and just don't want to budge? Seems pretty risky to me.
Hubris? Other?
PR? I don't see it. If Brady misses any games it will just reinforce to most that Brady is guilty.
To justify the Wells report to the other owners? I have to think most owners don't care if Brady agrees to it. I have to think most would prefer it to go away at this point and would consider any suspension a win.
Confident they can give the NFLPA a big defeat and just don't want to budge? Seems pretty risky to me.
Hubris? Other?
If you think "settlement" means neither side is 100% happy, then Brady accepting some sort of a suspension (1 game?) w/o accepting any part of the Wells report makes sense.
And at this point, screw what anyone thinks (or "PR") outside of the NEP fans. It'll still be a huge upset if #12 is not a first-ballot HoF.
And at this point, screw what anyone thinks (or "PR") outside of the NEP fans. It'll still be a huge upset if #12 is not a first-ballot HoF.
I don't think anyone has actually said that, easy though it may be to say it. What many have said, though, is that the actual number of people whose minds will be changed by a court ruling is infinitesimal compared with those who either don't give a shit or have already made up their minds that "Patriots" and *anything* associated with "Patriots" = " cheating and they will always think that.
I'm not giving Tom Brady advice. But I wont be butthurt if he decides to takes the certainty of one game over the real possibility of four games. And I wont second guess his decision if he rolls the dice and loses. There are good reasons for both choices. It seems though, that the good reasons for taking one game (if that's real) are getting lost in the sauce.
Screw them (us) too, insofar as Brady's decision on what to do here is concerned. Like Terry Francona once said, "If you start caring what the fans think, soon you'll be sitting with them."
This. Some "look at me" assholes will bring it up in the secret room so they have something to write about after his nomination and election is announced. Same with Belichick.
Schefter: League sources say Brady will accept reduced suspension only on non-cooperation. Needs exoneration from WR.
Zolak: Brady pissed. Won't accept a single game, views it as an admission of guilt.
Someone's lying, again. Gee wonder which side.
Zolak: Brady pissed. Won't accept a single game, views it as an admission of guilt.
Someone's lying, again. Gee wonder which side.
It's fair to assume that Berman knows what kind of offers are being kicked around, right? Wouldn't it piss him off if one side is negotiating through the media?cshea said:
BigJimEd said:
It's not hard for me to understand why the NFL is insisting that the conclusions of the Wells Report are accepted. They invested an enormous amount of time, money and credibility in that report, and Goodell simply cannot walk away from it without opening him up to withering criticism from owners, which is the only constituency he cares about.
Given the position of the NFL, the Wells Report is the hill Goodell must be willing to die on.
Brady's side could be talking pre-season game suspension. I think that would still match up -- won't accept regular season game. Who knows. These are public PR tweets so people will believe whatever side they want to believe.
BigJimEd said:
It's not just the Wells Report that Brady and the NFLPA has to accept, it's several things, including the commissioner's "authority to suspend Brady and other players for conduct detrimental to the league and obstructing a league investigation". Goodell and the NFL are trying to re-write the CBA without going to the negotiating table. It sets the bar higher for the NFLPA 5 years before the next CBA negotiations; they are going to have to pay in blood of their first born to get some sort of reasonable player discapline system back, if they acquiesce to these demands.
The more this farce plays out, the more it becomes a power play in advance of the 2020 CBA. We keep asking why would the NFL destroy the reputation of one of its 2-3 most marketable stars over football inflation, which they never gave a shit about? Part of it is probably stupidity and pettiness on the side of the NFL, part of it is a crime of opportunity, but part of it is a calculated move. Brady will be gone by the next CBA and there will be new superstars to drive tickets and merchandising and if the NFL is able to use this as a way to get more control and money out of the players then every cent spent on the Wells "report" and fighting this in court is worth it.
It's also a great way to recover from the Rice shibacle. The NFL will be able to demand literally anything from the players when they investigate. Shit that you would never be required to handover to a prosecutor. This is 100% stacking the deck against the players because Goodell can't do discipline right; I mean his biggest thing is "being able to look them in the eyes" and decide if they are being truthful. In what world is that a reasonable standard of fucking proof?
This may have been the position before the settlement conference, and when the NFL wasn't going to budge, Brady changes his mind, talks to Zo.cshea said:
The 1-2 game non-cooperation suspension is likely the furthest that the NFLPA is willing to go. I would also bet that there would be language limiting the punishment to this circumstance.
J.McG said:
I think this makes sense. Brady's team floated this in an effort to appear reasonable. It was a calculated risk on his side knowing that the NFL would use it against him in the court of public opinion, as it always has and as they have clearly done. But it shows a willingness to compromise that the NFL has not.
I'm not entirely sure I love the strategy, per se, but I think there is a logic to it.
Question though....any chance that, as part of the settlement, Brady can request WHICH game to sit? I guess what I am saying is....is that something he can ask for as part of the settlement offer? Not saying it would be accepted, but even game 2 would be preferable to the home opener.
I suppose because it would give some sort of legitimization to this entire farce. In the absence of a settlement, right now the best case scenario for the NFL is the 4-game suspension of one of their greatest players ever for an incident that emerged due to an erroneous tweet and that an increasing number of people doubt ever really happened.
I suspect the Wells report was the NFL's attempt to whitewash their own missteps in the days surrounding the AFC Championship game. Once this thing blew up, Goodell and his cronies quickly realized that their initial Keystone Kops handling of the incident would never stand up to public scrutiny, so they brought in Wells to give them something else to rely on (with the alleged instructions not to focus on what the NFL had done in the preceding days). Unfortunately for the NFL, the Wells report itself was so thoroughly flawed that people began increasingly questioning its conclusions and methodology. So the NFL moves to door #3- get Brady to accept the report, and then all the glaring flaws about the entire process become more or less irrelevant. Any criticism of process can simply be rebutted with the claim of "Doesn't matter. Brady agreed with the findings."
Brady accepting the Wells report or any findings of guilt is huge for the NFL. It's basically a big red reset button for Goodell. This entire shitshow gets legitimized and everything he's fucked up and lied about since January gets forgotten.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that NFL ultimately offered no games, a fine, and acceptance of the Wells report.
What does the NFLPA get from a settlement?
As far as the NFL is concerned, isn't a settlement just tacit approval instead of legal approval?
As far as the NFL is concerned, isn't a settlement just tacit approval instead of legal approval?
With these people, what agree to all these things and then we'll talk about reducing the suspension means is that after you agree to them we'll leak that to the media then we'll talk about how we still won't reduce the suspension.
natpastime162 said:
This is predicated on the idea that the suspension is accepted without accepting the findings of the Wells "Report" and the NFL's new powers to suspend under non-cooperation, but they get to fight another day without: 1) losing what little power they have over player discipline in the CBA by agreeing to the NFL's demands. 2) losing what little power they have over player discipline by a ruling in federal court, based on what some might consider a technicality. Basically the status quo is kept, which is not great, but it is better than the negative alternative.
Depends on the terms of the settlement agreement. One thing they would definitely get is not having a federal judge say that what Goodell did is legal. In the garden-variety case, if you sue me for some form of negligence, and we settle by me paying you money, the settlement agreement will say something along the lines of "this agreement is not an admission of liability by the defendant."
In our case, that means nothing to you, because you think I did it; same with your friends and family, but it has legal ramifications. Similarly, a settlement where Brady concedes nothing will be viewed one way in legal circles and other ways in other circles. I think that goes to your "tacit" point.
I would assume that if the NFL demands language in the agreement that has the NFLPA agreeing that Goodell "acted in conformity with the CBA and federal labor law at all times," that there will be no agreement.
dc,
I don't think that's anything. Goodell lost in federal court once already and that hasn't stopped him. I don't see much of a reason to think there's actually anything to the status quo that protects players (or we wouldn't be in this mess), or that things could get much worse with a loss.
What's Goodell going to do? Be more arbitrary? Even a loss is better than the status quo from a procedural perspective (because it would add clarity).
If Brady's willing to take a suspension to get something else he wants, he should do it. I personally hope he fights it, though, if he is, in fact, innocent.
I don't think that's anything. Goodell lost in federal court once already and that hasn't stopped him. I don't see much of a reason to think there's actually anything to the status quo that protects players (or we wouldn't be in this mess), or that things could get much worse with a loss.
What's Goodell going to do? Be more arbitrary? Even a loss is better than the status quo from a procedural perspective (because it would add clarity).
If Brady's willing to take a suspension to get something else he wants, he should do it. I personally hope he fights it, though, if he is, in fact, innocent.
Goodell is planting his flag. He knows that the union is weak and that standing tall on their part is not going to happen, particularly over this issue. This is not about winning new territory, it's about setting the parameters of the discussion. The union will break and bow if they start fighting. They are not unified. They may receive some concessions here and there, but at what cost? Do they sacrifice $ or other issues important to the owners in order to walk this back? Sure seems like that'd be a huge win for Goodell.
Now that this leak about Brady being willing to accept games is being attributed to league sources, I'm not sure why we're not just ignoring it.
