#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[bankshot1]

If NFL owners are concerned about poor publicity falling on the league, they should consider a scathing decision written by Berman, (irrespective of his award decision) and the prospect of another 1-2 years of this issue in the courts. Brady's reputation has already been (unfairly) tarnished so he has little to lose holding his ground on exoneration/non-admission of guilt, but a fine for non-cooperation.  

 

[Otis Foster]

From that story:

RG abusing his powers is absolutely a valid reason to be upset. This statement reads like victim blaming. 'You got into his car of your own free will, you can get upset that he drove off a cliff'

 
The real problem is a misjudgment as to the temperament, judgment and yes, character of the man in whom you vested the power. They also misjudged how hard-edged the combination of TB and Kessler is. They're getting ready for a kill shot, and Berman may be prepared to deliver it for them.
 
Whatever the final order, I expect Berman to excoriate the NFL for its handling of this matter.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

#DFG: Angels dancing on the head of an inflation needle

Thread title?

(I'm just getting bored of the grandma one)

Berman to Goodell:  go get your shine box!

 

[bsj]

The former. I continue to think TB and Union will win.

Just trying to temper expectations by noting that Berman's conduct is quite consistent with one scenario in which we lose.

 
My nightmare scenario is that Berman GETS that the NFL is wrong and that Goodell is a scumbag, but that he just doesnt feel the law allows him to vacate. As such he's trying to browbeat the NFL into a settlement, so that Brady gets something out of this whole ordeal, in the spirit of fairness. 
 
I hope that doesn't happen. 

 

[Leather]

 
My nightmare scenario is that Berman GETS that the NFL is wrong and that Goodell is a scumbag, but that he just doesnt feel the law allows him to vacate. As such he's trying to browbeat the NFL into a settlement, so that Brady gets something out of this whole ordeal, in the spirit of fairness. 
 
I hope that doesn't happen. 

 
Ya, ya, that's been brought up as a possibility.  
 
But as others have pointed out: there are (or seem to be) ways for Berman to vacate that would be within the margins of the law.    For instance, if he genuinely thinks that Goodell was out to get Brady from the start, and there is a motive for Goodell to punish Brady beyond the merits of the alleged wrongdoing, then he could find "bias".  

 

[Myt1]

 
Money quote:
 
Amazing that even owners who started out thinking TB was guilty have real doubts now. 

I see no reason to believe that this is anything but posturing and PR, like everything else the league has done. If they wanted to take this seriously for its own sake, the time for that was months ago.

The passive voice stuff having hurt everyone is rich, too. Like it's some process that exists independently of the will of the owners that just got out of control. A young, headstrong, unbroken horse, if you will.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
My nightmare scenario is that Berman GETS that the NFL is wrong and that Goodell is a scumbag, but that he just doesnt feel the law allows him to vacate. As such he's trying to browbeat the NFL into a settlement, so that Brady gets something out of this whole ordeal, in the spirit of fairness. 
 
I hope that doesn't happen. 

 
If the judge upholds the suspension but with a scathing decision that essentially reads "Brady was railroaded, in ways X, Y, Z, but unfortunately my hands are tied" that's hardly a nightmare scenario.

 

[SocrManiac]

I see no reason to believe that this is anything but posturing and PR, like everything else the league has done. If they wanted to take thisprocess hit seriously for its own sake, the time for that was months ago.

 
This is it exactly. Owners are politicians. They don't want to be tarred by the same brush in the public eye. The writing is rapidly appearing on the wall and there's a positioning battle going on that will allow separation when the hammer falls.

 

[tims4wins]

 
If the judge upholds the suspension but with a scathing decision that essentially reads "Brady was railroaded, in ways X, Y, Z, but unfortunately my hands are tied" that's hardly a nightmare scenario.

But isn't that worst case at this point? And isn't that a better position than we were in a month ago?

 

[singaporesoxfan]

But isn't that worst case at this point? And isn't that a better position than we were in a month ago?

 
Is that really the worst case? The worst case to me is the judge finding for the NFL without any criticism of its handling of the case.

 

[Leather]

But isn't that worst case at this point? And isn't that a better position than we were in a month ago?

 
No.  Worst case scenario is that the judge makes a bland decision to uphold the suspension, and expounds on why the law says he must and the importance of deferring to arbitrators and not being in a position to judge on the merits of Brady's discipline but includes some language to the effect of "if the league determined that malfeasance has occurred, it is not for me to say otherwise" and leaves it at that.

 

[dcdrew10]

Seems some owners are coming to their senses on this, according to Mike Freeman's piece this morning:

Lots more at the link --> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2551267-nfl-owner-on-deflategate-this-entire-episode-is-embarrassing-our-sport
 

 
"I don't know," the owner said. "But I think there needs to be a discussion." The other owner backed this idea, too. Again, the owner might speak for many. The owner pointed to how Deflategate started in January and is still going. It was seven months to the day on Tuesday. It's been 215 days as of Friday. It took three days to go to the moon. "Nothing like this happens in other leagues," the owner said. "Why our league?"

I was certain that Goodell & co. would appeal should Berman vacate Brady's suspension, but now I'm not so sure assuming this growing discontent among the owners is for real...

 
Is the NFL now realizing that it is the only league that has a player discipline system that is viewed by players and the public and finally the owners as arbitrary and poorly administered? I can't think of a situation in any other league where a player conduct issue went so far afield. The Ryan Braun steroid thing comes to mind, but MLB had an arbitration process in place and settled it. There is no process in the NFL player discipline process, beyond Goodells' whims and desires to "look them in the eyes" and decide the truth.

 

[dcdrew10]

Berman to Goodell:  go get your shine box!

 
God, no. I never understood why people think this is a great line to trot out as a "victory line." Did Billy Batts win that arguement? Yes. Did saying "Get your shine box" get him killed? Yes. It's the ultimate win the battle to lose the war act.

 

[tims4wins]

 
No.  Worst case scenario is that the judge makes a bland decision to uphold the suspension, and expounds on why the law says he must and the importance of deferring to arbitrators and not being in a position to judge on the merits of Brady's discipline but includes some language to the effect of "if the league determined that malfeasance has occurred, it is not for me to say otherwise" and leaves it at that.

Maybe it is my homer glasses but based on how Berman has handled this from day 1 I can't see the decision being anything close to bland.

 

[Myt1]

 
Is the NFL now realizing that it is the only league that has a player discipline system that is viewed by players and the public and finally the owners as arbitrary and poorly administered? I can't think of a situation in any other league where a player conduct issue went so far afield. The Ryan Braun steroid thing comes to mind, but MLB had an arbitration process in place and settled it. There is no process in the NFL player discipline process, beyond Goodells' whims and desires to "look them in the eyes" and decide the truth.

Brady didn't beat up someone weaker than he is and, well, he's a good-looking, white QB. They're worried that people will start looking too deeply into their process-esque sham, now, but all the same issues were obvious last year to anyone who was paying attention.

Pravda, with ESPNFL leading the charge.

 

[Shelterdog]

Maybe it is my homer glasses but based on how Berman has handled this from day 1 I can't see the decision being anything close to bland.

 
I think that's right. 
 
The very public effort Berman is putting in to settling this thing suggests to me that (among other things) he's laying the framework so the Second Circuit affirms a decision to vacate.  Whether the NFL was meaningfully engaged in settlement talks isn't legally relevant but judges are human and it's a lot easier to stomach a district court vacating an arbitration award if that judge really, really tried to resolve the matter and found the NFL to be unreasonable.

 

[garzooma]

From that story:
RG abusing his powers is absolutely a valid reason to be upset. 

 
It's a good deal worse than abusing his powers.  He abused his powers after saying that there would be an independent investigation.  I would think the other owners have been thinking that Wells did an independent investigation, just as Kraft originally thought. And that after the report came out Kraft was just being a sore loser.  Well, now they're hearing a federal court judge questioning whether the investigation was fair as promised.  You can have an organization where underlings abuse their power, but you can't have them lying to the owners.

 

[tims4wins]

Florio breaks it down

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/21/why-would-judge-berman-go-over-goodells-head/

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
My nightmare scenario is that Berman GETS that the NFL is wrong and that Goodell is a scumbag, but that he just doesnt feel the law allows him to vacate. As such he's trying to browbeat the NFL into a settlement, so that Brady gets something out of this whole ordeal, in the spirit of fairness. 
 
I hope that doesn't happen. 

I really don't get how he can do this (ie, believe that Brady was railroaded but that he can do nothing about it). Can Article 46 really be interpreted as to allow railroading?

If Berman says "yes" then shorter CBA: Roger can do whether the fuck he wants whenever the fuck he wants. The provisions of the CBA apply only when Toger seems them to be appropriate.

A scathing opinion upholding the suspension would be a disastrous ruling for the players - far worse than a vanilla upholding. And wouldn't even a vanilla ruling would be bad for the players given the interest Berman has taken in the details of the case? Seems like that would just be Berman washing his hands of the matter.

 

[joe dokes]

Owners are politicians. They don't want to be tarred by the same brush in the public eye. The writing is rapidly appearing on the wall and there's a positioning battle going on that will allow separation when the hammer falls.

 
Owners are billionaires.  They usually buy politicians so they can further game a system that was gamed when they were born into it. (Fortune favors the fortunate).
 
Sometimes, however, their vast financial resources don't give them the advantage they are accustomed to.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Shelterdog, I can see Berman himself being affected by the perception that the NFL was intransigent in the face of his directive to engage in settlement negotiations.  For that reason, I like the leaks about Brady's willingness to move at various times.  Tom's flexibility is responsive to the Judge.  But I am much less confident that this issue will be viewed as very important by the Second Circuit.  The appellate court is of course not immune to such things, but I also think they may be a little removed from the fray and more focused on the law.  And it's natural for Berman to be more disturbed by the NFL's failure to listen to him that for people whose directive was not ignored.
 
PS: Berman's tireless efforts re settlement are rather impressive.  Judges cajoling the parties to settle is nothing new.  Actually making efforts to parties who are not presently in front of the Judge in the room, and who are not actual litigants in the case, involved in the efforts is pretty unique.  I've never seen that before.  I'm sure it's not nearly unprecedented but it is certainly not common. Good show, Richard Berman. That this has not settled is ridiculous.  All that said, that Berman is pushing settlement so hard scares me because it suggests that he may feel an inability legally to rule the way he thinks this should come out, so he is pressuring the NFL with every available means.

 

[OnWisc]

Goodell's usefulness as a patsy for the owners has been wearing thin for some time, and the Ray Rice situation ripped off whatever thin veneer of competence he had left. So to watch the owners try to backpedal now, and to consider the ever so slight possibility that they will need to do so further if Berman keeps pressing is delightful.

Keeping Goodell on as Commisoner after everyone and their grandmother knew he was unqualified for his position made it inevitable that his next major fuckup would boomerang back on the owners. At this point, the owners trying to pin anything on Goodell would be like an airline hiring an 8 year old kid to fly a 747 and then holding up their hands and claiming "pilot error" when the plane goes off the runway.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
God, no. I never understood why people think this is a great line to trot out as a "victory line." Did Billy Batts win that arguement? Yes. Did saying "Get your shine box" get him killed? Yes. It's the ultimate win the battle to lose the war act.

 
You're reading it in reverse, IMO.  It's SUCH an awesome ender that if you're perfectly-timed nailed with it, literally the only way to get your heat back is by killing the dude who said it.  That's a good insult.

 

[DavidTai]

 
 
All that said, that Berman is pushing settlement so hard scares me because it suggests that he may feel an inability legally to rule the way he thinks this should come out, so he is pressuring the NFL with every available means.

 
Could it be more that he's trying to make it appeal-proof so it doesn't ever have to come back into the court system?

 

[tims4wins]

Shelterdog, I can see Berman himself being affected by the perception that the NFL was intransigent in the face of his directive to engage in settlement negotiations.  For that reason, I like the leaks about Brady's willingness to move at various times.  Tom's flexibility is responsive to the Judge.  But I am much less confident that this issue will be viewed as very important by the Second Circuit.  The appellate court is of course not immune to such things, but I also think they may be a little removed from the fray and more focused on the law.  And it's natural for Berman to be more disturbed by the NFL's failure to listen to him that for people whose directive was not ignored.
 
PS: Berman's tireless efforts re settlement are rather impressive.  Judges cajoling the parties to settle is nothing new.  Actually making efforts to parties who are not presently in front of the Judge in the room, and who are not actual litigants in the case, involved in the efforts is pretty unique.  I've never seen that before.  I'm sure it's not nearly unprecedented but it is certainly not common. Good show, Richard Berman. That this has not settled is ridiculous.  All that said, that Berman is pushing settlement so hard scares me because it suggests that he may feel an inability legally to rule the way he thinks this should come out, so he is pressuring the NFL with every available means.

 
Based on the opinion of others here, I am taking it more as he really really really doesn't want to have to potentially create a new standard by issuing a ruling, and he also wants to avoid future appeals. A settlement means he can clean his hands of this entire stupid affair.

 

[dcmissle]

By my count, there are 23 judges on the Second Circuit bench. Their proclivities and philosophies are all over the lot. Beyond a healthy respect for hard working district court judges, and a refusal to get star struck by any party or lawyer before them, you can't assume anything.

This case would go into the hopper with all the rest of them. Beyond being reasonably attentive to matters genuinely calling for expedited resolution, nobody is getting any special treatment.

This often is a revelation to billionaires and large business entities. It is amusing to be in the room when scales drop from their eyes.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
Based on the opinion of others here, I am taking it more as he really really really doesn't want to have to potentially create a new standard by issuing a ruling, and he also wants to avoid future appeals. A settlement means he can clean his hands of this entire stupid affair.

I was not intending to suggest that my doomsday scenario is the only one.
 
Judges often push settlement before they have any inclination on how they are going to rule.  Settlement gets them off the hook, lightens their docket and allows the parties who know much more than the Judge about the dispute to work it out themselves.  I've heard the "please settle this thing" speech from Judges at all phases during cases, and usually from Judges whose reasons for pushing settlement were far less nuanced than the rationale I was suggesting for Berman here.
 
I just think that one reasonable possibility is that his heart is with Brady/NFLPA given the NFL's actions but that he is still mired in the CBA and, as a result, the best outcome for him would be a settlement which enables him not to rule as he thinks he must.  While it's true that a settlement ends it and ends any possibility that he might have to continue to deal with the matter, it's also true that if he thinks he has a clear path to rule for Brady/NFLPA, he could rain hellfire on the NFL. 

 

[PBDWake]

 
Based on the opinion of others here, I am taking it more as he really really really doesn't want to have to potentially create a new standard by issuing a ruling, and he also wants to avoid future appeals. A settlement means he can clean his hands of this entire stupid affair.

 
Yeah. I'm going to alter it slightly and say "IANAJ", but if I were a judge, I don't think I'd be pushing so hard out of some great feeling of injustice being done to this multi millionaire due to his union's collectively bargained away his right to appeal. It's a lot of money, sure, and it is an injustice, but this doesn't seem the sort of thing a federal judge would get so passionate about pushing for. I just don't think he'd care that much, and it's a little egotistical to think he would just for Tommy. He's a judge, he's likely had to rule against far more worse off people based on the letter of the law in the past, I doubt this keeps him up. However, I think a judge does care about his own image, rulings, and court, as well as precedent HE will set, and I don't think he wants to set one on a bad case and tie up his circuit in appeals. That just makes significantly more logical sense.

 

[J.McG]

Florio breaks it down  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/21/why-would-judge-berman-go-over-goodells-head/

 
From the Sports Business Daily article cited by Florio, published today:
 

Packers President & CEO Mark Murphy said it would be good for the NFL to settle the Deflategate lawsuit, but at the same time praised Commissioner Roger Goodell for handling the situation well.
 
Speaking late yesterday, Murphy cautioned not to read too much into federal judge Richard Berman’s critical questions of the league in court the last two weeks. “It is not good having it play out in court, and you got the Super Bowl MVP suing the league,” he said. “But the judge, my sense is, is pushing to a settlement. That seems to be a priority. It would be good.”
 
Murphy said Goodell is "in a tough position and he is trying to protect the integrity of the game, and I think he sent a pretty strong message that no player or team is above the game."

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2015/08/21/murphy.aspx
 
Murphy appears to be straddling the fence more than Florio presents in his article, but at least he's putting his name on his preference for settlement, unlike the anonymous owners being quoted by Freeman et al.
 
EDIT: As Florio pointed out, it was the league that sued first, not Brady. Murphy therefore implies Brady and the NFLPA are to blame for this mess.

 

[TheoShmeo]

By my count, there are 23 judges on the Second Circuit bench. Their proclivities and philosophies are all over the lot. Beyond a healthy respect for hard working district court judges, and a refusal to get star struck by any party or lawyer before them, you can't assume anything.

This case would go into the hopper with all the rest of them. Beyond being reasonably attentive to matters genuinely calling for expedited resolution, nobody is getting any special treatment.

This often is a revelation to billionaires and large business entities. It is amusing to be in the room when scales drop from their eyes.

I agree that it's very dangerous to assume much about such a large group.  But I do think that one characteristic that appellate judges, in general, tend to show is they are a little less caught up in the byplay and "who shot John" aspects between the parties and even the parties and the judge than the trial/hearing level judge.  As a result, I could see Berman putting more emphasis on the parties' failure to heed his directive to try to settle than appellate level judges, who might be less invested in that issue.  I'm not saying it's absolute.  I am saying that in my experience, appellate courts tend to focus less on such matters than trial/hearing level judges. 

 

[OnWisc]

 
From the Sports Business Daily article cited by Florio, published today:
 
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2015/08/21/murphy.aspx
 
Murphy appears to be straddling the fence more than Florio presents in his article, but at least he's putting his name on his preference for settlement, unlike the anonymous owners being quoted by Freeman et al.

Brady's suing the League?

EDIT: Nevermind. Just saw the counterclaim stuff below.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

#DFG: Angels dancing on the head of an inflation needle

Thread title?

(I'm just getting bored of the grandma one)

 
 
#DFG  Gauging Berman

 

[joe dokes]

I agree that it's very dangerous to assume much about such a large group.  But I do think that one characteristic that appellate judges, in general, tend to show is they are a little less caught up in the byplay and "who shot John" aspects between the parties and even the parties and the judge than the trial/hearing level judge.  As a result, I could see Berman putting more emphasis on the parties' failure to heed his directive to try to settle than appellate level judges, who might be less invested in that issue.  I'm not saying it's absolute.  I am saying that in my experience, appellate courts tend to focus less on such matters than trial/hearing level judges. 

 
Your take on appellate court judges is spot on. One thing to add.....to the extent that Berman uses any of the NFL's actions before *him*  (not settlement talks, but argument) as support for a decision that concludes bias or unfairness or the like, the appeals court often defers to the assessment of trial judges who have to make such assessments.  Ironically, on questions of credibility, appeals courts often say things like, "The trial court had the opportunity to observe the witness and is in a better position to assess his credibility." I.e., "looked him in the eye."  (That's a different question than whether such facts - inaccuracy obfuscation, whatever -- are permissible for the trial judge to use in these circumstances.  *That's* definitely a question the appeals court would consider and one I don't know the answer to).

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

#DFG:  Berman - "You want me on that wall!"

 

[jacklamabe65]

It would be more likely to happen if owners were involved. Judge Berman seems to realize that. And since the specific title of the case is National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, why doesn’t Judge Berman simply require the entire Management Council Executive Committee to come to court on August 31?
 

 
Florio
 
This would be totally awesome.

 

[dcmissle]

I agree that it's very dangerous to assume much about such a large group.  But I do think that one characteristic that appellate judges, in general, tend to show is they are a little less caught up in the byplay and "who shot John" aspects between the parties and even the parties and the judge than the trial/hearing level judge.  As a result, I could see Berman putting more emphasis on the parties' failure to heed his directive to try to settle than appellate level judges, who might be less invested in that issue.  I'm not saying it's absolute.  I am saying that in my experience, appellate courts tend to focus less on such matters than trial/hearing level judges. 

Are we measuring appellate dicks again?

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

On the other matter, I think Berman is pushing for settlement because he knows either side is likely to appeal. I don't think he is trying to prevent an appeal from a personal judicial standpoint, I think he's sold on how ridiculous this exercise has become and truly wants it over. I think his pressure to settle is 100% based on wanting this matter to come to an end. 
 
My take on the Mara thing is at some point in settlement conferences, Roger has made reference to "needing to check with certain owners", and this is Berman calling him out on it. If Roger wants to act like he doesn't have authority to accept a settlement on his own, Berman is requesting the presence of someone who does, who will either have the authority or will at least assist in calling Roger's bluff. The fact that they are claiming conflict with Mara is no surprise. The last thing Berman wants is Roger in the settlement room on 8/31 claiming he doesn't have approval or authority to accept an offer. 

 

[TheoShmeo]

Are we measuring appellate dicks again?

That wasn't my intent.  I'm Jewish and shy away from such contests!
 
And I'm a little surprised to read such a snarky line from you.
 
My point is not remotely intended to be absolute.  If you think that it's entirely sui generis, then I simply disagree and was sharing another way to look at it.  I don't claim to be right.  It appears that at least one other lawyer here thinks I am.  Not that that makes me right either.  Just sharing a view that comports with my experience.

 

[J.McG]

Looks like we may be getting some fresh court filings today after all, from the NFL side at least:
 

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 24m24 minutes ago  NFL must still file an answer to Brady & NFLPA Counterclaim; under federal court rules, answer is due on August 21 (today). Stay tuned!
Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 23m23 minutes ago  Same substantive content as its prior court filings, but re-packaged and re-labeled as denials and affirmative defenses
Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 23m23 minutes ago  Normally, a party that fails to answer by deadline runs risk of a default judgment. But zero possibility of that happening here
Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 21m21 minutes ago  NFL would have to address counterclaim allegations, line by line, with either "admit," "deny," or "don't know," plus defenses
Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 20m20 minutes ago  Judge Berman won't default NFL for not filing an answer to the counterclaim; the prior NFL filings in case are deemed to be the response
Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 18m18 minutes ago  Reason why NFL would be wise to file an answer today: one more chance to tell story & address Berman questions, without any page limitations

 

[OnWisc]

Wouldn't the small sampling of NFL Execs who are stating on record that they just want this over with indicate that an NFL appeal isn't a given? How do you reconcile that stance with an appeal?

 

[Myt1]

Looks like we may be getting some fresh court filings today after all, from the NFL side at least:
 

Don't expect much.

1. Denied
2. Denied
3. The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that it contains factual allegations, those allegations are denied.

Etc.

 

[denilson3]

I think this Mara stuff was leaked not by Brady or by Goodell, but a faction of owners that no longer support Goodell. The way you convince the rest of your colleagues to get rid of Roger is by showing them he can no longer protect them from flak.

 

[bankshot1]

 
Florio
 
This would be totally awesome.

If that were to happen 31 owners will not be happy taking the perp walk, getting reamed out by the Judge, and then ask the themselves the questions,
 
"I thought we were paying Roger to take the shit?" and
 
"Why the fuck didn't this settle months ago? and
 
"What the fuck am I doing in NYC court-room I should be on the beach with my mistress?

 

[bakahump]

Goodell's usefulness as a patsy for the owners has been wearing thin for some time, and the Ray Rice situation ripped off whatever thin veneer of competence he had left. So to watch the owners try to backpedal now, and to consider the ever so slight possibility that they will need to do so further if Berman keeps pressing is delightful.

Keeping Goodell on as Commisoner after everyone and their grandmother knew he was unqualified for his position made it inevitable that his next major fuckup would boomerang back on the owners. At this point, the owners trying to pin anything on Goodell would be like an airline hiring an 8 year old kid to fly a 747 and then holding up their hands and claiming "pilot error" when the plane goes off the runway.

Heheheh
 
Yea But the Plane has always been on time (using Auto Pilot) while the 8 yo has been at the controls! <End poking fun at the "Goodell has made the owners lots of money" argument>

 

[Harry Hooper]

Wouldn't the small sampling of NFL Execs who are stating on record that they just want this over with indicate that an NFL appeal isn't a given? How do you reconcile that stance with an appeal?

 
I would refer you to Myt1's post earlier.
 
It's just cheap handwringing PR by the owners. They're just helplessly being tossed within the maelstrom. We're supposed to pity them?

 

[Buster Olney the Lonely]

The Goodfellas talk got my creative juices flowing. In light of the fact that we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of its release.
 

 

[Tony C]

Bert Breer on Toucher & Rich was asked by a caller "What do other players think?" Says he's been to 12 different camps, and "100% of the players" he's spoken to on background are behind TB12. Specifically mentioned the Dolphins players and coaches, who told him Wells & NFL did the same thing in Incognito investigation "kept asking same question until they got the answer they wanted."

 
here's the poll results to add a bit of meat to that -- http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/12/survey-finds-most-nfl-players-think-bradys-suspension-too-harsh/
 
while I doubt it's a 100%, I would suspect sentiment has hardened among players as more has come out. 
 
Monbo Jumbo, on 21 Aug 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

 
 
#DFG  Gauging Berman

 
Definitely time for a change, if I'm permitted -- the angels one was good, but let's go with this since it's concise.

 

[tims4wins]

The Goodfellas talk got my creative juices flowing. In light of the fact that we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of its release.
 

 
Bravo

 

[dcmissle]

That wasn't my intent.  I'm Jewish and shy away from such contests!
 
And I'm a little surprised to read such a snarky line from you.
 
My point is not remotely intended to be absolute.  If you think that it's entirely sui generis, then I simply disagree and was sharing another way to look at it.  I don't claim to be right.  It appears that at least one other lawyer here thinks I am.  Not that that makes me right either.  Just sharing a view that comports with my experience.

My point is that I have yet to meet a judge immune to a compelling factual narrative, particularly when it reinforces key legal points in the case. I work on that section of briefs tirelessly, and everything flows from it.

"Hard cases make bad law" has been kicking around at least since Winterbottom v Wright in 1842. The point already has been made here that there is sufficient latitude that a ruling for TB and the union would not even make bad law, or establish principles that cannot be confined to the facts at hand.

It is splendid that the facts have developed in such a way that we are not discussing the cell phone anymore.

 

[TheoShmeo]

My point is that I have yet to meet a judge immune to a compelling factual narrative, particularly when it reinforces key legal points in the case. I work on that section of briefs tirelessly, and everything flows from it.

"Hard cases make bad law" has been kicking around at least since Winterbottom v Wright in 1842. The point already has been made here that there is sufficient latitude that a ruling for TB and the union would not even make bad law, or establish principles that cannot be confined to the facts at hand.

It is splendid that the facts have debelooed in such a way that we are not discussing the cell phone anymore.

Undoubtedly true.
 
I did not mean to suggest that appellate judges only care about the law and ignore the facts.  And I agree that emphasizing favorable facts is critical on really all levels.
 
I just think that appellate judges are a little less prone to focus on facts such as whether the parties heeded the lower court's admonition to settle.  That said, it's not nearly black and white, and it's of course true that a skilled lawyer on Brady's side might very well weave into the narrative that Tom was reasonable and open to settlement, while the NFL was not.