Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 we will see how the judge reacts. he could look at either side as out of line there.I think the judge already knows. Sure he has warned them to come to a settlement. But he surely knows the only reason he was given the case is that the NFL told Brady no settlement unless you admit guilt and Brady said no admit guilt and no settlement just total exoneration we will see you in court. What is very likely going to happen is what Florio postured a few days ago. The judge is going to basically let both sides know which way he is about to rule and the loser will either cave and settle or he will just rule that way. My prediction is that Brady never caves and the four games is upheld and his side will still claim he never did anything wrong and was railroaded with no proof. His ego will prevent any admission of guilt and he will actually be hurting his team because of it. I very much doubt that it will affect his ruling either. Nor would I think he would consider it out of line. How can you say it's out of line to not lower the penalty on someone you believe both committed the act and lied and obstructed. That is not out of line in an arbitration appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) NFL apparently sticking to their guns. I like it. Because, well, they're in the right and they should. Schefter, via Mort, saying there will be no settlement unless Brady agrees to the findings of the Wells report. Nice. https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/631463412845801472 I could see this as giving an opening for Brady to save face, if he's smart. (Big "IF" if the way he has handled this issue thus far is any indication...) The wording in Wells' findings gives him this opportunity, i.e., "I'm not admitting guilt, but I could see how someone might see it as, "more likely than not" that I knew what was happening, but I didn't, so I'll accept the basic premise of the Wells Report in its terms of "more likely than not," so in that regard, I accept the findings of the Wells Report." Or, something to that effect. If Goodell is interested in ending this thing, and moving on (how could he not be?), I could see this sort of compromise, with some sort of reduced punishment-- two games, perhaps? Even just a fine. I wouldn't be surprised. Edited August 12, 2015 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Adam Caplan retweeted Mike Mazzeo @MazzESPN 15m15 minutes ago People wearing deflated footballs on their heads. Happy Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/NdVbbsyOro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I could see this as giving an opening for Brady to save face, if he's smart. (Big "IF" if the way he has handled this issue thus far is any indication...) The wording in Wells' findings gives him this opportunity, i.e., "I'm not admitting guilt, but I could see how someone might see it as, "more likely than not" that I knew what was happening, but I didn't, so I'll accept the basic premise of the Wells Report in its terms of "more likely than not," so in that regard, I accept the findings of the Wells Report." Or, something to that effect. If Goodell is interested in ending this thing, and moving on (how could he not be?), I could see this sort of compromise, with some sort of reduced punishment-- two games, perhaps? Even just a fine. I wouldn't be surprised. Tough for me to see how Brady could agree to more likely than not he cheated and obstructed. The Wells report is pretty clear. It says he gave answers that were implausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fridge Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 As someone who doesn't want to go through 99 pages of this back and forth, is there a timetable when we can expect a new development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 As someone who doesn't want to go through 99 pages of this back and forth, is there a timetable when we can expect a new development? There is a meeting with the judge today. Possible settlement but unlikely. Next Wednesday another of the same. Possible settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 As someone who doesn't want to go through 99 pages of this back and forth, is there a timetable when we can expect a new development?No, and there really won't be a firm timeline from here as it can change and evolve with any given meeting. Will depend greatly on the judge, and of course the two parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fridge Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 There is a meeting with the judge today. Possible settlement but unlikely. Next Wednesday another of the same. Possible settlement. What sort of settlement are the experts projecting here? Am I to assume the judges are not going to accept the arbitrator's case? I assumed that the time and resources the NFL put into the Wells investigation would trump any rebuttal and need for intervention/settlement? Is there precedent in the courts stepping in and forcing a settlement when everything has been as thorough as the NFL has put forth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 No Saint, I just read some tweet by some guy who made a good point. It could be unreasonable for the NFL to insist on Brady agreeing to the Wells report because you're asking him to admit to perjury. He did of course commit perjury, but you are somewhat asking him to admit to a crime. Whether he did it or not is somewhat immaterial (this just in, he did it). So the judge could ask them to say you need to admit to a general acknowledgment of "it's more likely than not you knew about it" and that is all, versus the whole findings of the Wells Report. It would still be an admission of probably guilt and I think Brady would still not agree. But the judge could view asking him to admit perjury regardless of whether he committed perjury to be an unreasonable request. What sort of settlement are the experts projecting here? Am I to assume the judges are not going to accept the arbitrator's case? I assumed that the time and resources the NFL put into the Wells investigation would trump any rebuttal and need for intervention/settlement? Is there precedent in the courts stepping in and forcing a settlement when everything has been as thorough as the NFL has put forth? I think most legal experts have opined that they think Brady would lose the appeal and the judge would rule in the NFL's favor without a settlement. Judges are unlikely to overrule arbitration unless there was a gross abuse in the process and there may have been some missteps but not gross abuse. The CBA allows Goodell to do what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I already answered that same question above. Now you're just being an ass. There aren't even any specific allegations that he changed anything. He didn't do any of the investigation. He wordsmithed the thing. And you clearly don't know the definition of the word which is "MAKING CHANGES TO A TEXT TO AFFECT CLARITY AND STYLE AS OPPOSED TO CONTENT." I have no idea the exact words he changed to make it more clear. You're just trolling and irrelevant. How can you tell? WEO has been trolling this community for years. It's what he does. GO BILLS!!! NFL apparently sticking to their guns. I like it. Because, well, they're in the right and they should. Schefter, via Mort, saying there will be no settlement unless Brady agrees to the findings of the Wells report. Nice. https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/631463412845801472 In reading some of the tweets in that thread, it's amazing how naive people are about what's before the court. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is quite another. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I already answered that same question above. Now you're just being an ass. There aren't even any specific allegations that he changed anything. He didn't do any of the investigation. He wordsmithed the thing. And you clearly don't know the definition of the word which is "MAKING CHANGES TO A TEXT TO AFFECT CLARITY AND STYLE AS OPPOSED TO CONTENT." I have no idea the exact words he changed to make it more clear. You're just trolling and irrelevant. The only info about his editing (or "wordsmithing" as you seem to prefer) come from NFL sources--no one else but team Wells and the league saw the report before Pash did his thing. So how can you be certain that nothing was changed? I mean, do you not understand why this is an apropriate question? You already said you had no idea what Pash altered. You keep replying with this weird wordsmithing thing, as though that phrase itself naturally erases any and all doubt. How can you tell? WEO has been trolling this community for years. It's what he does. GO BILLS!!! In reading some of the tweets in that thread, it's amazing how naive people are about what's before the court. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is quite another. GO BILLS!!! This is the ultimate white flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Tough for me to see how Brady could agree to more likely than not he cheated and obstructed. The Wells report is pretty clear. It says he gave answers that were implausible. No Saint, I just read some tweet by some guy who made a good point. It could be unreasonable for the NFL to insist on Brady agreeing to the Wells report because you're asking him to admit to perjury. He did of course commit perjury, but you are somewhat asking him to admit to a crime. Whether he did it or not is somewhat immaterial (this just in, he did it). So the judge could ask them to say you need to admit to a general acknowledgment of "it's more likely than not you knew about it" and that is all, versus the whole findings of the Wells Report. It would still be an admission of probably guilt and I think Brady would still not agree. But the judge could view asking him to admit perjury regardless of whether he committed perjury to be an unreasonable request. I think most legal experts have opined that they think Brady would lose the appeal and the judge would rule in the NFL's favor without a settlement. Judges are unlikely to overrule arbitration unless there was a gross abuse in the process and there may have been some missteps but not gross abuse. The CBA allows Goodell to do what he did. The phraseology that Wells used, such as, "more likely than not," is used to indicate a preponderance of evidence, meaning that something is at least 51% likely. If the two sides really want to be done with this, Brady could admit to that preponderance of evidence, with the caveat that he falls into the 49% of likelihood. Of course, reasonable people understand that the evidence in this case is greater than 51%, but for the purposes of a settlement, that could be easily ignored. Suffice to say, Brady would be admitting to the appearance of guilt, without admitting to the guilt, itself. As far as a perjury case would be concerned, perjury, as a crime, does not rely on a preponderance of evidence. Criminal cases carry a much higher standard of proof in which guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Admitting that circumstances could amount to a preponderance of evidence without admitting guilt does nothing to add to that standard of proof required for a criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The only info about his editing (or "wordsmithing" as you seem to prefer) come from NFL sources--no one else but team Wells and the league saw the report before Pash did his thing. So how can you be certain that nothing was changed? I mean, do you not understand why this is an apropriate question? You already said you had no idea what Pash altered. You keep replying with this weird wordsmithing thing, as though that phrase itself naturally erases any and all doubt. This is the ultimate white flag. Sure, to a megalomaniac troll. Are you winning the rest of the internet today? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The only info about his editing (or "wordsmithing" as you seem to prefer) come from NFL sources--no one else but team Wells and the league saw the report before Pash did his thing. So how can you be certain that nothing was changed? I mean, do you not understand why this is an apropriate question? You already said you had no idea what Pash altered. You keep replying with this weird wordsmithing thing, as though that phrase itself naturally erases any and all doubt. i asked yesterday but dont recall seeing an answer -- has the nflpa/brady been given access to the full info uncovered that the report was built on, or just the report, and basic supporting science documents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The only info about his editing (or "wordsmithing" as you seem to prefer) come from NFL sources--no one else but team Wells and the league saw the report before Pash did his thing. So how can you be certain that nothing was changed? I mean, do you not understand why this is an apropriate question? You already said you had no idea what Pash altered. You keep replying with this weird wordsmithing thing, as though that phrase itself naturally erases any and all doubt. This is the ultimate white flag. Because that is exactly as the NFL described what it is Pash did and it's the only reasonable thing to decide that is what Pash did because he took no part in the actual investigation and there have not been any reports of him changing the content and yet you continue to ignore all elements of what is known and what is said in some kind of childish and embarrassing (to you) gotcha game. Pash didn't participate. It's abundantly clear what did actually happen at every single turn if you read the damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Sure, to a megalomaniac troll. Are you winning the rest of the internet today? GO BILLS!!! Some of us are trying to have a discussion. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 i asked yesterday but dont recall seeing an answer -- has the nflpa/brady been given access to the full info uncovered that the report was built on, or just the report, and basic supporting science documents? If you were Brady and the NFLPA, wouldn't you have demanded all 1,000 plus pages of the full report early on? Do you imagine the league would say no to that demand? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 i asked yesterday but dont recall seeing an answer -- has the nflpa/brady been given access to the full info uncovered that the report was built on, or just the report, and basic supporting science documents? No. They haven't. And see K-9's answer above as I just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) If you were Brady and the NFLPA, wouldn't you have demanded all 1,000 plus pages of the full report early on? Do you imagine the league would say no to that demand? GO BILLS!!! traditionally, the nfl has not supplied that info to players in this spot - it was a major issue in bounty gate in fact. so your arguments that the nflpa/brady would be up in arms if they found something left out might be an issue of them not knowing if anything included was slanted, or there was pertinent info left out. or it could back ktds assertion that all is on the up and up if theyve been supplied it. Edited August 12, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Because that is exactly as the NFL described what it is Pash did and it's the only reasonable thing to decide that is what Pash did because he took no part in the actual investigation and there have not been any reports of him changing the content and yet you continue to ignore all elements of what is known and what is said in some kind of childish and embarrassing (to you) gotcha game. Pash didn't participate. It's abundantly clear what did actually happen at every single turn if you read the damn thing. Oh, the NFL told you so. Who are you expecting to come out and say that Pash altered the document significantly?? Come on. You are saying that he didn't change it because the NFL told you so--or no one told you he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts