Patriots release statement on Walsh

[Willis990]

Pats statement on Matt Walsh/NFL agreement

Posted on April 23, 2008

Filed Under Uncategorized

 

This was jsust passed along by the Patriots:

 

The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.

 

It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.

 

At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”

 

The Patriots’ organizational focus at this time is on the NFL Draft and preparing

 

 

 

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

 

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Pats statement on Matt Walsh/NFL agreement

Posted on April 23, 2008

Filed Under Uncategorized

 

This was jsust passed along by the Patriots:

 

The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.

 

It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.

 

At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”

 

The Patriots’ organizational focus at this time is on the NFL Draft and preparing

 

 

 

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

 

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392

 

 

Oh gee, good it's you again... and here I thought today would be boring.

[Billadelphia]

I bet he has a bunch of other stuff, though. I agree that he doesn't have this one because that statement wouldn't have been reiterated, but you know there's going to be something good that will make the Pats look like the cheaters they are.

[KD in CA]

Dude, you forgot the asterisks.

 

Maybe there could be a board filter that inserts a '*' after any reference to the Pats* or Patriots* so that people don't forget.

[Joe Miner]

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

Why do you think that people are only concerned about the *'s cheating in the SB against the Rams? Plus the fact that there are several ways of reading that statement. Kraft's statement could be true, but the *'s could still have cheated against the Rams.

 

If Walsh has tape of them cheating in some preseason game, I wanna know that as well.

[K-9]

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392

 

Not necessarily. There's a difference between saying "... the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough..." vs. Matt Walsh recorded the walkthrough.

 

Kraft and the Patriots could could then safely deny that they had any part in recording anything their employee took it upon himself to do without their knowledge beforehand.

 

I doubt that's the case but it IS a possibility.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Steely Dan]

Pats statement on Matt Walsh/NFL agreement

Posted on April 23, 2008

Filed Under Uncategorized

 

This was jsust passed along by the Patriots:

 

The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.

 

It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.

 

At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”

 

The Patriots’ organizational focus at this time is on the NFL Draft and preparing

 

 

 

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

 

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392

 

Yeah, they couldn't be setting themselves up for a plausible denial.

[Billadelphia]

Why do you think that people are only concerned about the *'s cheating in the SB against the Rams? Plus the fact that there are several ways of reading that statement. Kraft's statement could be true, but the *'s could still have cheated against the Rams.

 

If Walsh has tape of them cheating in some preseason game, I wanna know that as well.

 

That's what I'm saying, too. I could care less about the Rams and the Super Bowl and chances are, if that tape were in existence, I think it would be out already. I want to know if he consistently video taped teams in order to get him to those Super Bowls. To me, that's the real story here. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want the investigation to shift to just one game, but to 4-5 seasons.

[Joe Miner]

That's what I'm saying, too. I could care less about the Rams and the Super Bowl and chances are, if that tape were in existence, I think it would be out already. I want to know if he consistently video taped teams in order to get him to those Super Bowls. To me, that's the real story here. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want the investigation to shift to just one game, but to 4-5 seasons.

 

You and me both Brutha.

[PromoTheRobot]

The only question is how much of the evidence will be suppressed or destroyed. My prediction is the Pats* will get another slap on the wrist for some ticky-tacky violation. The rest of the evidence of how they cheated their way to three Super Bowls will go right into the shredder.

 

PTR

[IDBillzFan]

Wow, he hasn't even made his statements yet, and already the Hillary Patriots* are in full smashmouth mode.

 

I can't wait to find out that the entire Patriots* organization lost the Super Bowl because they were under sniper fire when they landed in Phoenix.

[drnykterstein]

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

Right. Like they have anything to lose by lying. If Walsh comes up big the pats will have many bigger worries on their hands than this false statement.

[gggbills]

Pats statement on Matt Walsh/NFL agreement

Posted on April 23, 2008

Filed Under Uncategorized

 

This was jsust passed along by the Patriots:

 

The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.

 

It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.

 

At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”

 

The Patriots’ organizational focus at this time is on the NFL Draft and preparing

 

 

 

There is no possible way Walsh has a tape of that walkthrough after reading this statement by the Patriots “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.” Kraft would never have that statement released if there was even a slight chance he had the tape.

 

 

http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392

 

I'm not saying that he has this Rams tape, but there is still a chance that he does, regardless of the released statement by the Pats And it goes something like this.....

 

He has the tape and the Pats say "We did not authorize him to tape that walkthrough nor did we know the tape ever existed, nor did we ever use the tape to our advantage to stop the high powered Rams attack. Walsh did it on his own without our knowledge or direction'.

See how easy that is???

[PromoTheRobot]

"We did not authorize him to tape that walkthrough nor did we know the tape ever existed, nor did we ever use the tape to our advantage to stop the high powered Rams attack. Walsh did it on his own without our knowledge or direction'.

See how easy that is???

How unbelievable is that? This guy worked for the Pats* for six years! He was no f***-up like they tried to make out to be. If he was, he wouldn't have worked for them that long. That excuse is like firing a gun, then saying you never told the victim to stand in front of the bullet.

 

PTR

[Beerball]

Yeah, they couldn't be setting themselves up for a plausible denial.

Perhaps the tape is of a practice 2 days before the SB?

[Willis990]

Right. Like they have anything to lose by lying. If Walsh comes up big the pats will have many bigger worries on their hands than this false statement.

 

 

It's a Billion dollar corporation.

[gggbills]

How unbelievable is that? This guy worked for the Pats* for six years! He was no f***-up like they tried to make out to be. If he was, he wouldn't have worked for them that long. That excuse is like firing a gun, then saying you never told the victim to stand in front of the bullet.

 

PTR

 

 

Smile....I know, I know, but if Walsh has that tape this is EXACTLY what the Pats will say.

[Steely Dan]

The only question is how much of the evidence will be suppressed or destroyed. My prediction is the Pats* will get another slap on the wrist for some ticky-tacky violation. The rest of the evidence of how they cheated their way to three Super Bowls will go right into the shredder.

 

PTR

 

I don't call the punishment they got a "slap on the wrist" it was harsher than anything given out before.

 

 

Right. Like they have anything to lose by lying. If Walsh comes up big the pats will have many bigger worries on their hands than this false statement.

 

It will probably be forgotten in the firestorm. If he doesn't have the tape then they are in good stead if he does then it doesn't matter.

 

 

I'm not saying that he has this Rams tape, but there is still a chance that he does, regardless of the released statement by the Pats And it goes something like this.....

 

He has the tape and the Pats say "We did not authorize him to tape that walkthrough nor did we know the tape ever existed, nor did we ever use the tape to our advantage to stop the high powered Rams attack. Walsh did it on his own without our knowledge or direction'.

See how easy that is???

 

Outstanding! The best post in this thread so far!!

 

 

Perhaps the tape is of a practice 2 days before the SB?

 

[MattM]

I'm not saying that he has this Rams tape, but there is still a chance that he does, regardless of the released statement by the Pats And it goes something like this.....

 

He has the tape and the Pats say "We did not authorize him to tape that walkthrough nor did we know the tape ever existed, nor did we ever use the tape to our advantage to stop the high powered Rams attack. Walsh did it on his own without our knowledge or direction'.

See how easy that is???

 

 

This is exactly what they're setting up--see point 6 of my ealier thread on my quick read of the Agt. (I'm a corporate lawyer by day, sadly.) The Agt. spends a lot of time talking about whether and when Walsh will be presumed to have been acting at the Pats' request (such circumstances arguably do not include taping another team's walkthrough) and puts the burden of proof on him "by a preponderance of the evidence" in other non-listed situations to show he was acting at their request. Sounds to me like (a) the tape may well in fact exist if they're spending this much ink in the Agt. on it (but we'll see) and (b) the Pats and the NFL are setting up the argument that Walsh was a lone gunman on this one (which to me will be completely non-believable no matter how much they spin it--for ex., if he did tape it on his own, you mean to tell me he never, ever showed it to anyone else there? I mean, wouldn't that be the point of doing this, to impress your bosses with how devious you can be? Or was he just filming it for his personal collection? If he did show it to anyone else there, shouldn't they have brought this up during the investigation into all of this in the fall? I mean, the Pats can't have it both ways in such a case. At a bare minimum they would have lied to the Commish's office about this then.)

[Steely Dan]

This is exactly what they're setting up--see point 6 of my ealier thread on my quick read of the Agt. (I'm a corporate lawyer by day, sadly.) The Agt. spends a lot of time talking about whether and when Walsh will be presumed to have been acting at the Pats' request (such circumstances arguably do not include taping another team's walkthrough) and puts the burden of proof on him "by a preponderance of the evidence" in other non-listed situations to show he was acting at their request. Sounds to me like (a) the tape may well in fact exist if they're spending this much ink in the Agt. on it (but we'll see) and (b) the Pats and the NFL are setting up the argument that Walsh was a lone gunman on this one (which to me will be completely non-believable no matter how much they spin it--for ex., if he did tape it on his own, you mean to tell me he never, ever showed it to anyone else there? I mean, wouldn't that be the point of doing this, to impress your bosses with how devious you can be? Or was he just filming it for his personal collection? If he did show it to anyone else there, shouldn't they have brought this up during the investigation into all of this in the fall? I mean, the Pats can't have it both ways in such a case. At a bare minimum they would have lied to the Commish's office about this then.)

 

Thanks, really appreciate a professionals perspective. If it's true that it exists and the Pets* claim no knowledge of it I don't think it can stop Goodell from issuing another penalty.