I was hoping capitalizing NO and using way too many ? would be the giveaway.....dcmissle said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Corsi said:
FFS. Whomever is in the "Brady Camp" talking to Anderson should really give some serious consideration to shutting up.
Yee has been a bit of a weak link here. Maybe it's he.
What is objectionable about what they told to Anderson? Not like Berman's going to be like " Those bastards restating their case and citing my history I'm siding with the NFL over this." Don't think it makes any difference at all.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
jimbobim said:
There is something of a tradition among good lawyers not to talk to the press about how a judge is going to rule while the case is pending. Good judges expect adherence to this tradition. Will Berman change his mind today because of it? No, I sincerely doubt it. But this is the work of an amateur. If you want to know the proper way to answer these questions, Kessler is a good example. His response to similar questions? We expect a just result. That's a good answer.
Yee might be the smartest guy in the room. Having Brady destroy his phone as soon as Wells indicated it wouldn't make a difference was genius. He rightly anticipated that the NFL would use the phone issue as justifying Brady's punishment, and that if the punishment were overturned in court, the fact that the phone couldn't be un-destroyed would mean that the NFL wouldn't just get a do-over. He outsmarted Wells and read Goodell like a book. This was all intentional.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Judging from the lack of leaks from the Brady camp over the past few weeks, I'm sure if it was Yee that it was coordinated with the entire group. The Brady side has been pretty disciplined of late. I'm sure that leak was Kessler or Kessler approved.
Well, now it's settled.
@BillSimmons My Deflategate prediction: Brady gets off, NFL vows appeal, Goodell slowly distances himself (makes Pash/Vincent fall guys), appeal dropped.
@BillSimmons PS: Goodell's out is "I wouldn't have handled this so poorly if the people underneath me didn't fail me." Easily leakable to media cronies.
@BillSimmons My Deflategate prediction: Brady gets off, NFL vows appeal, Goodell slowly distances himself (makes Pash/Vincent fall guys), appeal dropped.
@BillSimmons PS: Goodell's out is "I wouldn't have handled this so poorly if the people underneath me didn't fail me." Easily leakable to media cronies.
If this case ends with Pash getting pushed out, forget Brady, Goodell and discipline-- if Pash was a hardliner in the CBA negotiation, pushing him out will likely be worth the cost of litigation to the NFLPA.SeoulSoxFan said:
SeoulSoxFan said:
As much as I'd like to see this happen, partially so Brady can play, but mostly because I hate Vincent, Bill must have filled his marijuana prescription today. The upside of this dream scenario is, knowing his past history, if Vincent ever got a whiff of being thrown under the bus, he'd spill the beans and drag everyone possible under the wheels with him.
SeoulSoxFan said:
Seems like the only way the NFL would drop the appeal is if Goodell is besieged by owners telling him to end all this. That doesn't seem likely to me since the story will be starved for oxygen in the coming months as the appeal process will take considerable time to evolve.
[twitter]benvolin[/twitter]
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/638752268993626112
Feely specifically addressed the 2009 K-ball incident with Berman yesterday. Hopefully Berman already considered it, but it can't hurt.
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/638752268993626112
Feely specifically addressed the 2009 K-ball incident with Berman yesterday. Hopefully Berman already considered it, but it can't hurt.
MetSox1 said:
Hard to see owners being relevant to an appeals court considering whether Judge Berman acted appropriately in vacating arbiter Goodell's decision. I can be convinced otherwise, however.
Bob Kravitz @bkravitz Aug 31
I believe the NFL has once again miscalculated by failing to reach an agreement with Brady. Won't be surprised if it's vacated. IMO
I believe the NFL has once again miscalculated by failing to reach an agreement with Brady. Won't be surprised if it's vacated. IMO
So Berman is effectively taking non-oath, eyewitness testimony on a specific issue raised by the NFLPA in its complaint in chambers in the context of settlement discussions?
This is really something. I wonder if there was a court reporter there. I also wonder if the parties have been objecting to any of this stuff to set up an argument for appeal.
This is really something. I wonder if there was a court reporter there. I also wonder if the parties have been objecting to any of this stuff to set up an argument for appeal.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
It sounds more like a question towards 'rule of shop', as to how the NFL has handled similar situations in the past was answered.
At this point, I think the NFL wants the suspension vacated. Goodell and the front office looks like it took a hard line with Brady, even if it was overturned (thus not setting a precedent for settling) AND they'll get their marquee player back for their primetime matchup.
All of the check boxes have been checked.
Offseason exposure? Check. Hardline with the NFLPA? Check. Brady plays in primetime game? Check.
All of the check boxes have been checked.
Offseason exposure? Check. Hardline with the NFLPA? Check. Brady plays in primetime game? Check.
Mr. Hicks (aka Baghdad Bob), please write a tell-all; pretty please with Kensil tears on top.soxhop411 said:
ifmanis5 said:
Well, he's joining the firm that's been doing the PR for the NFL, so it's like Baghdad Bob moving from bunker 1 to bunker 2.
DavidTai said:
Yeah, maybe -- certainly there's a valid reason to bring it up in settlement discussions, because the fact that a similar violation was not previously punished or even investigated is relevant to whether a common ground can be reached on a lesser punishment here.
But it's also directly relevant to the merits of the issues before Berman, because it goes directly to the notice and other arguments. Which is sort of why you want judges who are deciding the merits not to also being holding settlement discussions where they are getting substantive information relevant to the merits outside the traditional evidence-admission process. This is very unusual. At least to me -- maybe it's common in SDNY.
crystalline said:
Hardliners are easily replaceable. Any boob can say "no."
Good dealmakers - not so easy to find. No indication that the Shield wants any, though. Probably just get another empty suit to say "no."
I have a very low opinion of Pash dating back to Peterson. I saw him being interviewed (Mike & Mike?). He just flat-out refused to acknowledge any weakness or ambiguity in the NFL's position, and kept parroting his moronic one-liners, to the point where he lacked any credibility. It doesn't take skill to do that, and if Pash is outed in a palace coup, Rog will be able to find the likes of Pash quite easily.
Still think it's getting affirmed? I suppose it could be for some explosive dicta, but I think the plain reason is more likely.DennyDoyle said:
I wonder if Mara was called in to "testify," not help usher in a settlement. He was head of the committee in 2009 when Feely was punished, was he not?
Here's a good one from ESPN.com. First the headline:
PLAYERS OK WITH GOODELL AS JUDGE
Now the text.
Why would players vote for a CBA where Roger Goodell is judge and jury? Says Jeff Saturday: "They don't even think they'll ever even meet Roger Goodell, so they don't care about that portion of the CBA nearly as much."
Disconnect, maybe? How many players, after seeing what Brady has been put through, will actually say that now?
PLAYERS OK WITH GOODELL AS JUDGE
Now the text.
Why would players vote for a CBA where Roger Goodell is judge and jury? Says Jeff Saturday: "They don't even think they'll ever even meet Roger Goodell, so they don't care about that portion of the CBA nearly as much."
Disconnect, maybe? How many players, after seeing what Brady has been put through, will actually say that now?
Harry Hooper said:
The owners opinions aren't relevant to the court once the case is filed. But they are the ones who will decide whether to appeal or not.
Ed Hillel said:
Fuck, I don't want to be the poster child on the "thinks it's getting confirmed" side of this thing.
My position is pretty simple. I want very much to believe that Berman's comments, and the way they've been reported, is an indication of which way he is leaning. But my approach to all that is the approach I took while lying in bed at night on December 24 -- hope, don't expect. But if the reports of the hardline position the NFL has been taking are true, an equally plausible way to interpret what has happened to date is that Berman saw them as the recalcitrant party in settlement and wanted to work them over harder and put public pressure on them.
In the end, on the merits, the NFL starts on third base, and that's a problem. I think the NFL has way overstated its case -- claiming that the NFLPA agreed to a non-neutral arbitrator and trying to equate industrial customs and law of the shop with mere precedent. But while I disagree with both of those arguments, the NFLPA's argument that the change from general awareness to a more active participation finding is equivalent to what happened in Peterson just isn't sitting well with me. And, though the NFL dramatically overstates it, and Kessler did a masterful job at crafting arguments to avoid it, that the NFLPA agreed to let Goodell sit does present some problems.
Average Reds said:
Yes, but the claim being made is owners would tell Goodell to drop the appeal because the owners were afraid of being dragged personally into the appeals court process. I don't think that's likely, and it's more likely they'd be dragged in under a Brady appeal. Yet to date the NFL has not settled = owners are not scared.
Right. But I think the comment is more getting at the fact that the owners' decision won't be affected by fear that some of them may get called into court if they appeal.Average Reds said:
I did notice I was the only one that voted for this position ... that the players fucked themselves with the CBA, and Berman should probably make an example of them for the rest of the CBA's in this country.
God I hope I'm wrong
God I hope I'm wrong
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Man, I am going into a meeting in 1 minute, this is definitely going to drop sometime in the next hour or two isn't it
This part always confused me a bit. The rule is that when a player is taken out of a baseball game he can't come back in. We all agree to that. So if a manager takes out a relief pitcher, then that guy goes in the dugout, puts on a crappy fake beard, crosses his number out with marker and writes another one in it's place then comes back in claiming that his name is not, in fact, Joe but it's Jose can the manager then say, hey, we all agreed to the rules, I'm allowed to put this "new" guy in? What is the tipping point when it comes to being a shitbag as an arbiter? One lie? Ten? What about when the whole case is made up?DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I know these are old questions but they are all old questions at this point. We're all basically on one of the ships in Gotham harbor waiting to see if the other boat pushes their button.
Harry Hooper said:
OnWisc said:
Agree with both your points. Was just a bit confused by the post I responded to.
Unless there's something extremely damaging that is likely to come out if the process moves forward (and I don't see that) this battle continues.
The latest? Friday late afternoon, I assume.
If it's today, it could really be any time. Judges normally post opinions during business hours but there is no such requirement.
The "announcement" will be posting the opinion to the docket,
If it's today, it could really be any time. Judges normally post opinions during business hours but there is no such requirement.
The "announcement" will be posting the opinion to the docket,