JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 That sounds like Kessler answering the question. But, his "opinion" aside, the question remains. GO BILLS!!! Can we both go back to our fallback positions? Impasse! I think the both of us can agree that we would prefer the judge put a stop to this legal dance/charade and make a ruling sooner rather than later. Although I have felt that the league was better positioned on the overarching legal issue before this judge I see the pendulum swinging to Brady's side. With the judge's many pointed question directed at the league he is building a case from their weak responses that would support a ruling against the league. Not that it matters with respect to how the judge will rule but most of the legal analysts who are covering this absurd case are saying that the league is not making a good impression in the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Can we both go back to our fallback positions? Impasse! I think the both of us can agree that we would prefer the judge put a stop to this legal dance/charade and make a ruling sooner rather than later. Although I have felt that the league was better positioned on the overarching legal issue before this judge I see the pendulum swinging to Brady's side. With the judge's many pointed question directed at the league he is building a case from their weak responses that would support a ruling against the league. Not that it matters with respect to how the judge will rule but most of the legal analysts who are covering this absurd case are saying that the league is not making a good impression in the courtroom. Fair enough. I just find it ludicrous to think the league's entire case, from the millions spent on the investigation, to the ruling, to the denial of Brady's appeal, is all based on nothing more than fantasy. There are certain facts, particularly as they pertain to the behaviors of certain individuals, including Tom Brady, that led the league to this point. Some would have me believe the league spun it all out of whole cloth and that is beyond ridiculous. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Fair enough. I just find it ludicrous to think the league's entire case, from the millions spent on the investigation, to the ruling, to the denial of Brady's appeal, is all based on nothing more than fantasy. There are certain facts, particularly as they pertain to the behaviors of certain individuals, including Tom Brady, that led the league to this point. Some would have me believe the league spun it all out of whole cloth and that is beyond ridiculous. GO BILLS!!! On this issue we go in circles to the point we get dizzy and stagger away from each other. My position from the start is simple: Whatever Brady did or didn't do with respect to his involvement with the balls is a trivial and insignificant matter. The alleged ball deflation had no bearing on the game or anyone's performance. Whatever infraction happened (or not) was not worthy of this multi-million $$$ bogus independent and shoddy investigation in which the league office was involved with and then ruled. My central focus from the start has been on the disproportionate response from the league and the process in which they handled this case. Whatever you think of the judge and how he has conducted himself he has done a public service by demonstrating how unfair and heavy heavy handed Goodell has behaved in this case. Even if the judge rules in favor of the league the judge exposed how inept and foolish RG has been. On disciplinary issues Roger is incompetent and has little common sense. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this issue. But for me the issue has been about the distorted process of this ridiculously inconsequential case and has little to do with Brady. I'll go even farther than most people who are against the league's position. I believe that Brady never ordered anyone or encouraged anyone to lower the balls below the allowable level. When Wells was asked by the judge if he had direct evidence of Brady's participation in any ball conspiracy he answered no. Brady is adamant that he didn't do anything wrong regarding the balls. He stated his position under oath. I believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for the link. I am not surprised Berman is putting more pressure on the league, to pressure them to settle; they come to the court in a much stronger position with the CBA. My current assessment > 10% chance they settle > 20% chance the judge rules against the League > 70% chance the judge affirms the League's right to dictate punishment per the CBA, and that their actions were "good enough" in this case I started with the following, but the reports have shifted my opinion: > 25% Settle >2% Rule for Brady >73% Affirm Leagues punishment Fair enough. For me it all boils down to this: I believe Berman has legal justification to either affirm or vacate the award. I see him vacating if he believes Brady is, or may be, innocent and/or he believes Brady wasn’t given a fair chance/due process, to defend his position. I believe he'll affirm if he believes Brady's credibility is in question and he lied. I highly doubt a settlement happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I They are indeed fighting in court over the rights that Goodell was or was not granted in the CBA. Whether he can punish players and not teams under the provision he is using, and several other things like that. What world are you living in? That's the loophole. So basically Goodell is a puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 His power in the CBA, and what he can do with it, is what is being challenged which is what I said. Recent history in reversing the cases is mostly irrelevant because in both of the cases used as examples the NFL changed the rules after the actual infraction and then tried to punish the player using those rules which weren't in effect at the time of the infraction. That is clearly wrong by the NFL and those were rightfully overturned. That is not at all what happened here. And I never said or wanted to make this an all or nothing case, he can punish as he sees fit. Never said anything to that case. I take everything individually and react to it. I think he oversteps his bounds all the time and have lambasted him for it here dozens of times *Dozens* of times??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) *Dozens* of times???Saying Goodell has overstepped his bounds? For sure. Dozens of times before and during this on other stuff too. I think he made all kinds of mistakes trying to be a supercop even before this started and said it all the time. I thought he was doing a pretty decent job the first couple years but he has been awful for a few years. That doesn't mean he is awful here in deflategate although he has made mistakes. Here meaning on this board not dozens of times in this thread. Although I have reference it several times. I also think however it's simultaneously a thankless job and his employers love him for the most part. I always liken him to Jerry Sullivan. Edited August 21, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fridge Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I also think however it's simultaneously a thankless job and his employers love him for the most part. I always liken him to Jerry Sullivan. Jerry Sullivan is a lot more transparent than the complex back and forth we get with Goodell. Goodell played into the Pats**[*] previously with Spygate and has now gone 180 on them. At the very least it shows he's somewhat capable of making the right decisions even if he must first brutally learn his lesson in the court of public opinion. ...also, just for fun, if Sullivan were the commissioner and actually acted as he writes in his columns, Darues would be suspended for the 2015 season, and Lynch would have been banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Jerry Sullivan is a lot more transparent than the complex back and forth we get with Goodell. Goodell played into the Pats**[*] previously with Spygate and has now gone 180 on them. At the very least it shows he's somewhat capable of making the right decisions even if he must first brutally learn his lesson in the court of public opinion. ...also, just for fun, if Sullivan were the commissioner and actually acted as he writes in his columns, Darues would be suspended for the 2015 season, and Lynch would have been banned. I only meant that Goodell is like Jerry Sullivan in the way that he makes a lot of mistakes and the general public thinks he's awful but his bosses love him because he's doing his job well and making them money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I only meant that Goodell is like Jerry Sullivan in the way that he makes a lot of mistakes and the general public thinks he's awful but his bosses love him because he's doing his job well and making them money. Goodell has probably had a date in the last 3 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fridge Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I only meant that Goodell is like Jerry Sullivan in the way that he makes a lot of mistakes and the general public thinks he's awful but his bosses love him because he's doing his job well and making them money. I know. The second part of my post was just being silly. The transparency I was referring to was that the whole, "the general public thinks he's awful but his bosses love him thing" is really obvious with Sullivan, but with Goodell I think it's debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 i didnt hear the story, but saw a mention on the ticker on ESPN about the league declining to let Mara get involved in the process? was that an attempt by mara to volunteer to be the 3rd party that might help remove some of the personal animosity between the sides? anyone catch details of what he was volunteering and why the nfl shut it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 i didnt hear the story, but saw a mention on the ticker on ESPN about the league declining to let Mara get involved in the process? was that an attempt by mara to volunteer to be the 3rd party that might help remove some of the personal animosity between the sides? anyone catch details of what he was volunteering and why the nfl shut it down? http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/john-mara-wanted-no-part-deflategate-settlement-talks-article-1.2332729 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 i didnt hear the story, but saw a mention on the ticker on ESPN about the league declining to let Mara get involved in the process? was that an attempt by mara to volunteer to be the 3rd party that might help remove some of the personal animosity between the sides? anyone catch details of what he was volunteering and why the nfl shut it down? I didn't hear the whole story but what I think I heard was the judge asked that and the NFL said no because Goodell has the authority and that Mara, being an opposing owner could/would be perceived to have conflicts of interest. I'm not sure I heard it right because it was on in the background but it does seem like a weird request. Isn't the judge supposed to be the third party? I don't know who that favors but it seems to clearly display the animosity between the NFL and Brady. At the very least it is doubtful he will be able to call his own roughing and interference penalties any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 i didnt hear the story, but saw a mention on the ticker on ESPN about the league declining to let Mara get involved in the process? was that an attempt by mara to volunteer to be the 3rd party that might help remove some of the personal animosity between the sides? anyone catch details of what he was volunteering and why the nfl shut it down? You heard wrong. He was the one asked to be a third party and he turned it down. He said, although I don't know if it's true, that it was a competitive advantage hing he was avoiding about Brady being or not being ready for the Cowboys game which of course matters to the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 You heard wrong. He was the one asked to be a third party and he turned it down. He said, although I don't know if it's true, that it was a competitive advantage hing he was avoiding about Brady being or not being ready for the Cowboys game which of course matters to the Giants. gotcha - i was trying to extrapolate from about a half sentence on ESPNs ticker. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 You heard wrong. He was the one asked to be a third party and he turned it down. He said, although I don't know if it's true, that it was a competitive advantage hing he was avoiding about Brady being or not being ready for the Cowboys game which of course matters to the Giants. The NFL lawyers turned down the request, but Mara agreed. One of the main points I heard was that the Cowboys are scheduled to play the Patriots week 4, so Mara's involvement would be a direct conflict of interest for him, impacting Brady's ability to play against his division rival. (How crazy would it be if Mara really thought a 3 game suspension was fair?) Game 4 (week 5), not week 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 The NFL lawyers turned down the request, but Mara agreed. One of the main points I heard was that the Cowboys are scheduled to play the Patriots week 4, so Mara's involvement would be a direct conflict of interest for him, impacting Brady's ability to play against his division rival. (How crazy would it be if Mara really thought a 3 game suspension was fair?)Game 4 (week 5), not week 4. Thanks. When I heard he said that the reason was the conflict of interest I figured he was asked himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Thanks. When I heard he said that the reason was the conflict of interest I figured he was asked himself. I think Jennifer Garner would be impartial. They should get her to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 The judge asked the NFL to bring in an owner to possibly help with trying to reach a settlement. The judge brought up Mara's name because he is on or the head of the competition committee. Also he probably knows more about him being he is in NY. The NFL turned down the request, but latter discussed it with Mara so he understood what went on when he would have heard his name mentioned around this at a latter time as a courtesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts