Patriots under investigation

[Texecutioner]

Brady is going to get this postponed I bet and have the suspension postponed until next season for more legal delays. I'm going to laugh my ass off if he beats out Goodell again and this has to get dragged out until next season. Lol!

 

[eriadoc]

His appeal is going to get smacked down hard. The judges are going to look at it, say " Football? WTF" GTFO."

I hope, anyway. This is as ludicrous as all the steroid hearings in Congress without any of the benefit of tying up people that would otherwise be harming society.

 

[Texecutioner]

His appeal is going to get smacked down hard. The judges are going to look at it, say " Football? WTF" GTFO."

What makes you so certain of that? You think those officials don't' want to get their chance to get involved? Clearly you didn't pay attention to Roger Clemens and how Congress enjoyed getting involved with his case, and the other baseball players. They loved being involved with that.

I hope, anyway. This is as ludicrous as all the steroid hearings in Congress without any of the benefit of tying up people that would otherwise be harming society.

Harming society how? If this involved the Houston Texans and J.J. Watt or Andre Johnson, are you saying you'd want them to just lie down and take the punishment instead of fighting to clear their names knowing the NFL didn't have a shred of evidence against them? You act like our government is productive anyhow. They'd likely enjoy handling a case like this a lot more than dealing with all the other stuff they screw up.

 

[TexansSeminole]

What makes you so certain of that? You think those officials don't' want to get their chance to get involved? Clearly you didn't pay attention to Roger Clemens and how Congress enjoyed getting involved with his case, and the other baseball players. They loved being involved with that.



Harming society how? If this involved the Houston Texans and J.J. Watt or Andre Johnson, are you saying you'd want them to just lie down and take the punishment instead of fighting to clear their names knowing the NFL didn't have a shred of evidence against them? You act like our government is productive anyhow. They'd likely enjoy handling a case like this a lot more than dealing with all the other stuff they screw up.

Pretty sure he meant that Congress are the people who would normally be harming society, but were tied up in that case at the time.

Could be wrong but don't think so.

 

[eriadoc]

What makes you so certain of that?

Not certain at all, just calling my shot. I can be as wrong as the next guy.

Harming society how?

Pretty sure he meant that Congress are the people who would normally be harming society, but were tied up in that case at the time.

What TexanSeminole said. I repeatedly joked at the time of the steroids hearings that at least the legislators were tied up doing silly stuff instead of passing actual laws that would screw us. This whole Deflategate crap has the same feel to it now as those steroids hearings, but I can't even make the joke anymore. Sorry, I could have conveyed my thoughts better.

 

[Texecutioner]

Not certain at all, just calling my shot. I can be as wrong as the next guy.





What TexanSeminole said. I repeatedly joked at the time of the steroids hearings that at least the legislators were tied up doing silly stuff instead of passing actual laws that would screw us. This whole Deflategate crap has the same feel to it now as those steroids hearings, but I can't even make the joke anymore. Sorry, I could have conveyed my thoughts better.

All good man. Sometimes I don't always see the intent online.

I figure that the government would love to poke their nose into stuff like this especially if they can get on tv. You know some of them would probably love to stick it to the league or to the Patriots depending on who they like or don't like.

 

[Double Barrel]

Brady is going to get this postponed I bet and have the suspension postponed until next season for more legal delays. I'm going to laugh my ass off if he beats out Goodell again and this has to get dragged out until next season. Lol!

I know Brady is not retiring anytime soon, but I'd love it if the suspension kept getting delayed until the point that he retired and never had to serve it. Mainly because I think Goodell is an asshat for the owners.

 

[Texecutioner]

I know Brady is not retiring anytime soon, but I'd love it if the suspension kept getting delayed until the point that he retired and never had to serve it. Mainly because I think Goodell is an asshat for the owners.

I think originally a few whiny owners that were always losing to the Pats and were rivals had pressured Goodell a lot. I think they thought that Brady would give up, and this thing wouldn't have dragged on onto two off seasons now, nor did they think a judge would pick apart the flawed tactics by Goodell and the ridiculousness that was the Wells Report. They were just thinking their little CBA could allow Goodell to do what he wants, but they forgot that they had no evidence or anything to suggest that Brady did anything to have any ruling in the first place of any kind.

I think now most of the owners just want it to go away. They're tired of the story being around, but at the same time none of them want to see the commish lose this huge war regarding the labor agreement which is what this thing has been about for over a year now. It stopped being about alleged footballs being deflated a long time ago. Now, they're fighting to keep the strength of their agreement they had in their contract. They should and would be able to keep that no problem if they hadn't pulled so many shenanigans and fraud tactics to make someone look guilty of something they have no proof of whatsoever.

 

[eriadoc]

I think originally a few whiny owners that were always losing to the Pats and were rivals had pressured Goodell a lot. I think they thought that Brady would give up, and this thing wouldn't have dragged on onto two off seasons now, nor did they think a judge would pick apart the flawed tactics by Goodell and the ridiculousness that was the Wells Report. They were just thinking their little CBA could allow Goodell to do what he wants, but they forgot that they had no evidence or anything to suggest that Brady did anything to have any ruling in the first place of any kind.

I think now most of the owners just want it to go away. They're tired of the story being around, but at the same time none of them want to see the commish lose this huge war regarding the labor agreement which is what this thing has been about for over a year now. It stopped being about alleged footballs being deflated a long time ago. Now, they're fighting to keep the strength of their agreement they had in their contract. They should and would be able to keep that no problem if they hadn't pulled so many shenanigans and fraud tactics to make someone look guilty of something they have no proof of whatsoever.

I agree with all of that except for what I perceive is the intent behind the final phrase. Your employer does not have to prove its case in a court of law to discipline you or even fire you. You can always sue your employer if you feel you've been wrongfully terminated or disciplined, but you're not likely to win that case unless you belong to a certain class of people. If the employer can show that you broke their rules, they can discipline you. That said, the evidence they had points to Brady being involved in the act. But you're right in that they can't courtroom prove it. So the real crux of the issue, as you alluded to, is what burden of proof lies upon the employer for internal employment discipline. We all know that the NFL is not a normal employer, and the labor agreements are collectively bargained, so that's really what's at play in this legal action. So I agree with you.

Where I take issue with most people's characterization of the issue lies in the fact that I believe all four of these things to be simultaneously true:

1.) The evidence points to Brady cheating;
2.) The NFL can't prove he cheated;
3.) Brady deserves to be punished;
4.) Goodell deserves to be fired;

Also, I'm tired of the story. JM2C.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I seriously doubt that anything is reversed at any level in that the appeals can only be based on essentially whether Godell has the authority to have final decision over NFL player discipline............and because of the NFLPA's blind "greed" and Smith's stupidity, the players traded away the farm in the last CBA.

 

[Double Barrel]

I think originally a few whiny owners that were always losing to the Pats and were rivals had pressured Goodell a lot. I think they thought that Brady would give up, and this thing wouldn't have dragged on onto two off seasons now, nor did they think a judge would pick apart the flawed tactics by Goodell and the ridiculousness that was the Wells Report. They were just thinking their little CBA could allow Goodell to do what he wants, but they forgot that they had no evidence or anything to suggest that Brady did anything to have any ruling in the first place of any kind.

I think now most of the owners just want it to go away. They're tired of the story being around, but at the same time none of them want to see the commish lose this huge war regarding the labor agreement which is what this thing has been about for over a year now. It stopped being about alleged footballs being deflated a long time ago. Now, they're fighting to keep the strength of their agreement they had in their contract. They should and would be able to keep that no problem if they hadn't pulled so many shenanigans and fraud tactics to make someone look guilty of something they have no proof of whatsoever.

Goodell went overboard with this one. It should have been a monetary fine and maybe a 1 game suspension, which I believe would have been paid and served and all of this would be behind them. But 1/4th of a NFL season for air in a ball that is widely known to have been tampered with by many teams/players for decades without repercussion in those cases?

I agree that this was mountain out of molehill because it was Brady/Patriots. I seriously doubt much would have happened if it was Dalton and the Bengals in this situation.

You can light up a player with a brutal and intentional illegal hit and not get that kind of punishment. This was the result of who it was and Goodell's reputation being crap from the Rice situation.

I agree with all of that except for what I perceive is the intent behind the final phrase. Your employer does not have to prove its case in a court of law to discipline you or even fire you. You can always sue your employer if you feel you've been wrongfully terminated or disciplined, but you're not likely to win that case unless you belong to a certain class of people. If the employer can show that you broke their rules, they can discipline you. That said, the evidence they had points to Brady being involved in the act. But you're right in that they can't courtroom prove it. So the real crux of the issue, as you alluded to, is what burden of proof lies upon the employer for internal employment discipline. We all know that the NFL is not a normal employer, and the labor agreements are collectively bargained, so that's really what's at play in this legal action. So I agree with you.

Where I take issue with most people's characterization of the issue lies in the fact that I believe all four of these things to be simultaneously true:

1.) The evidence points to Brady cheating;
2.) The NFL can't prove he cheated;
3.) Brady deserves to be punished;
4.) Goodell deserves to be fired;

Also, I'm tired of the story. JM2C.

Just curious, but since the NFL is a franchise operation, aren't the Patriots his employer and not the NFL? I'm sure there is lots of legal mumbo jumbo to make the NFL king in all of this, but I do wonder if Brady's check stubs have the Patriots logo on it and are signed by Robert Kraft.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Goodell went overboard with this one. It should have been a monetary fine and maybe a 1 game suspension, which I believe would have been paid and served and all of this would be behind them. But 1/4th of a NFL season for air in a ball that is widely known to have been tampered with by many teams/players for decades without repercussion in those cases?

I agree that this was mountain out of molehill because it was Brady/Patriots. I seriously doubt much would have happened if it was Dalton and the Bengals in this situation.

You can light up a player with a brutal and intentional illegal hit and not get that kind of punishment. This was the result of who it was and Goodell's reputation being crap from the Rice situation.



Just curious, but since the NFL is a franchise operation, aren't the Patriots his employer and not the NFL? I'm sure there is lots of legal mumbo jumbo to make the NFL king in all of this, but I do wonder if Brady's check stubs have the Patriots logo on it and are signed by Robert Kraft.

The NFL teams pay their own players. But the teams are bound by the same CBA rules that players are. Therefore, it's a mute point who is the player's employer.

 

[eriadoc]

Just curious, but since the NFL is a franchise operation, aren't the Patriots his employer and not the NFL? I'm sure there is lots of legal mumbo jumbo to make the NFL king in all of this, but I do wonder if Brady's check stubs have the Patriots logo on it and are signed by Robert Kraft.

Interesting you should bring that up. I have worked for my current employer for almost eleven years, minus six months when I moved to Florida (wife's family thing, ugh). I came back to my employer and took over my old department again. Upon return, the president of the company had to have me read and sign some BS policy letter that ADP requires of all its ... clients? companies? I don't know WTF you'd call it. Anyway, she made it very clear to me that it was mandated from ADP and not a company policy. I signed it because it was common sense stuff and I don't plan on doing whatever it was in the policy, but it makes you wonder how that was mandated from a company that we employ to do our payroll and benefits.

Anyway, side story that probably has no bearing, but I'm sure the NFL logo is on his paycheck.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Brady files petition for rehearing of federal appeal
Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2016, 4:35 PM EDT

As expected, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady has decided to continue to fight his four-game suspension arising from the #Deflategate controversy.

On Monday, Brady and the NFL Players Association filed a 15-page petition for a rehearing before the original three-judge panel or a rehearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The assault against Commissioner Roger Goodell’s decision begins quickly in the documents filed by the lawyers, accusing Goodell of “falsely portray[ing]” the Ted Wells investigation as independent and calling Goodell’s internal appeal ruling “biased, agenda-driven, and self-approving.” The petition also claims that the ruling from a divided three-judge panel “will fuel unpredictability in labor arbitrations everywhere and make labor arbitration increasingly capricious and undesirable for employers and employees alike.”

Tracking the dissenting opinion in the underlying ruling from Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann, the petition points to the fact that Goodell’s conclusion on appeal was based on “new grounds that were not part of the disciplinary decision” and that Goodell “completely ignored the collectively bargained schedule of penalties for equipment-related violations.” The petition specifically emphasizes Judge Katzmann’s comparison of football deflation to the use of Stickum, which triggers only a four-figure fine for a first offense, not a suspension.

The problem, as argued by the petition, isn’t that Goodell considered the Stickum comparison and rejected it but that Goodell never even mentioned it, relying instead only on the purported comparison between deflation of football and the use of PEDs, which triggers a four-game suspension for a first offense.

“Under the panel majority’s misguided approach,” the petition argues, “an arbitrator is now free to ignore critical provisions a CBA reflecting collectively bargained penalties.”

It remains to be seen whether that’s enough to trigger a rehearing. For a rehearing before the full Second Circuit, at least seven of the 13 active judges must agree to do it. Presumably, the Chief Judge counts as Vote No. 1.

I found some older statistics re. the 2nd Circuit actually accepting en banc rehearing.

128. For example, looking at the data from 2001


to 2009, the frequency of en banc cases


in each circuit from lowest to highest, based on


the percentage of en banc cases of a circuits’


total docket, was: 0.01 percent in the Second


Circuit; 0.07 percent in each of the Third,

Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits; 0.08 percent in

the Fifth Circuit; 0.09 percent in the Fourth

Circuit; 0.10 percent in the First Circuit; 0.13

percent in the Sixth Circuit; 0.14 percent in the

Ninth Circuit; 0.15 percent in the D.C. Circuit; 0.19 percent in the Tenth Circuit; 0.23

percent in the Eighth Circuit; and 0.30 percent in the Federal Circuit.

See Ryan Vacca, Acting Like an Administrative Agency: The Federal Circuit En Banc , 76 M O . L. R. EV.. 733, 738 (2011).

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4965&context=flr

Then more recent stats from an article published in 2015:

Rehearing En Banc is Rarely Granted = Less Than 3/100 of 1% of the Cases

· The Federal Court Management Statistics published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts confirm that the Second Circuit does indeed consider a far smaller percentage of its cases en banc than do the other regional circuits. (Source)


· According to the official statistics, in the 11-year period from 2000 through 2010, the twelve regional circuits heard a total of more than 325,000 cases that were terminated on the merits after oral hearings or submissions on briefs. A total of 667 (as reported) to 670 cases (using our Second Circuit data) were heard en banc during that same 11-year period—a little over 2/10 of 1% of the total. (Source)

· The average for the Second Circuit was about one-eighth that of the system-wide average: eight cases heard en banc out of a total of 27,856 appeals that were terminated on the merits, or less than 3/100 of 1% of the cases. (Source)

· The court appears to have taken an even more restrictive approach to granting en banc review, as in the 11-year period from 2000 through 2010, the court heard only eight cases en banc—a decline from an average of about 1.2 cases per year from 1979 through 1993 to a rate of about 0.7 cases per year from 2000 through 2010. (Source)

· Second Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann explains, in a concurring opinion in Riccio v. DeStefano, 53 F.3d 88, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2008), that “our Circuit [has] a “longstanding tradition of general deference to panel adjudication—a tradition which holds whether or not the judges of the Court agree with the panel’s disposition of the matter before it. Throughout [its] history, [the Court] ha proceeded to a full hearing en banc only in rare and exceptional circumstances.” (Source)

· Another explanation for the small number of cases heard en banc by the Second Circuit may be the informal procedure its judges follow of circulating cases to each other before issuance of a panel opinion in cases that might otherwise merit en banc review. (Source)

Don't hold your breath Mr. Brady

[EDIT: I dont know what has caused the strikeout lines]

 

[Texecutioner]

I seriously doubt that anything is reversed at any level in that the appeals can only be based on essentially whether Godell has the authority to have final decision over NFL player discipline............and because of the NFLPA's blind "greed" and Smith's stupidity, the players traded away the farm in the last CBA.

As far as the CBA goes, you are correct. However, if you can't even show, prove, or illustrate that someone did something, then what is their a punishment for? I don't think the verbiage or the wording in that CBA can completely allow the commish to just randomly pick some dude out and say he violated the rules just because. Him blaming the guy at the QB position is the most likely person that would want something like that done perhaps, but we don't know that for sure. The RB could have wanted that done or even the snapper so he could get a better grip when he snaps. Lol!It could be the receivers who might find a lower deflated ball easier to catch. Goodell just picked one player out and decided he was at fault for a rule they said was broken. I'm not sure that Goodell's power to discipline someone applies when he is just randomly selecting some dude off of a team that assumably would be involved.

 

[Mr teX]

As far as the CBA goes, you are correct. However, if you can't even show, prove, or illustrate that someone did something, then what is their a punishment for? I don't think the verbiage or the wording in that CBA can completely allow the commish to just randomly pick some dude out and say he violated the rules just because. Him blaming the guy at the QB position is the most likely person that would want something like that done perhaps, but we don't know that for sure. The RB could have wanted that done or even the snapper so he could get a better grip when he snaps. Lol!It could be the receivers who might find a lower deflated ball easier to catch. Goodell just picked one player out and decided he was at fault for a rule they said was broken. I'm not sure that Goodell's power to discipline someone applies when he is just randomly selecting some dude off of a team that assumably would be involved.

Lol, now all of a sudden there's got to be court-of-law standards b/4 the commish hands a suspension down? Could've fooled me. The league's been doing this for years....even well before Goodell became the commish.

Robert Mathis was suspended for 4 games for violation of the league's PED policy...
Brian Cushing was suspended for 4 games for violation of the PED policy....

In both of those instances there was no hard proof of those guys actually using steroids or steroids actually being in their system but rather they were suspended b/c of the suspicion of steroid use basically b/c they had elevated levels of a known masking agent in their systems & a rigid PED policy...Where was all this outrage about Goodell's discipline power then? Guys are just arbitrarily choosing to pick up this cause b/c it pretty Thomas.

If it was as you say some "random" guy like the deep snapper or 1 of NE's random ass RB's & Goodell decided to suspend 1 of those guys for 4 games, would you still be all up in arms behind this? Probably not. You likely would never have even heard about it & if you had heard about it, i doubt the media makes it as a big a deal as they have & For that matter neither would Kraft, Belichick & the Patriots. They probably would've just cut whomever it was, & news of the suspension probably doesn't even make NFL.com's website & the suspension Gooddell handed down would've been upheld with no drama whatsoever.

 

[infantrycak]

Him blaming the guy at the QB position is the most likely person that would want something like that done perhaps, but we don't know that for sure. The RB could have wanted that done or even the snapper so he could get a better grip when he snaps. Lol!It could be the receivers who might find a lower deflated ball easier to catch.

Nope. Nice job trying to cloud the issue but there's only 1 player those equipment guys would listen to on any team. Beyond that generality everyone involved here said Brady had a preference for as low as possible and that's what they followed.

 

[Texecutioner]

Nope. Nice job trying to cloud the issue but there's only 1 player those equipment guys would listen to on any team. Beyond that generality everyone involved here said Brady had a preference for as low as possible and that's what they followed.

And who is to say that other players didn't as well? You can't just paint these statements out as fact, when you have no idea who they may or may not listen to. I've said time and time again that all these QB's have been doing this for 30 years even on the Texans team as Leinart talked about it being done on every team he played on. At the end of the day, you can't just blame one guy for something just because you want him to be guilty, and say that you're out for league justice. If anyone should be punished then it should be the HC. It's his team and his players. Picking one guy, because you assume he is the guilty party with no proof and it being based on his position is not a legitimate charge. You're ultimately saying they are guilty all because you say so.

 

[infantrycak]

So which is it, lots of positions could be controlling it or all the QBs do this?

Try asserting a defense in court that 200 bank robberies were unsolved last year so you can't prosecute me.

 

[Texecutioner]

Lol, now all of a sudden there's got to be court-of-law standards b/4 the commish hands a suspension down? Could've fooled me. The league's been doing this for years....even well before Goodell became the commish.

Robert Mathis was suspended for 4 games for violation of the league's PED policy...
Brian Cushing was suspended for 4 games for violation of the PED policy....

In both of those instances there was no hard proof of those guys actually using steroids or steroids actually being in their system but rather they were suspended b/c of the suspicion of steroid use basically b/c they had elevated levels of a known masking agent in their systems & a rigid PED policy...Where was all this outrage about Goodell's discipline power then? Guys are just arbitrarily choosing to pick up this cause b/c it pretty Thomas.

If it was as you say some "random" guy like the deep snapper or 1 of NE's random ass RB's & Goodell decided to suspend 1 of those guys for 4 games, would you still be all up in arms behind this? Probably not. You likely would never have even heard about it & if you had heard about it, i doubt the media makes it as a big a deal as they have & For that matter neither would Kraft, Belichick & the Patriots. They probably would've just cut whomever it was, & news of the suspension probably doesn't even make NFL.com's website & the suspension Gooddell handed down would've been upheld with no drama whatsoever.

Yes Mr. Tex, they went way to far this time. Their investigation was full of so many holes. Wells did a really poor job, and they wasted a ton of money being that this is still going on.

What you and others don't realize is that this is going to blow up in everyone's faces big time down the road. This hasn't been just one case that Goodell's volatility has created a black eye on the NFL. He keeps stock piling these blunders one after another. The Peterson case, the Hardy case, and especially the Ray Rice cases were all handled terribly. Goodell and company went way to far with this punishment to begin with, and they should have known that Brady was going to fight it to the end of time. The majority of the NFL players are rooting for Brady in this, because they now realize how fucked up their CBA agreement is. If Goodell and the NFL win this, it will show Goodell and the rest of the players just how easily Goodell and hurt their careers and use underhanded tactics to do it. The next league and player's association is going to be horrible. You're going to see an awful drawn out negotiation that will very likely cause a season to get sliced up. The players and the owners are going to have probably the worst negotiation for their next collective bargaining agreement we've ever seen after this case ends. The only ones that lose in that is the fans.

 

[ChampionTexan]

And who is to say that other players didn't as well? You can't just paint these statements out as fact, when you have no idea who they may or may not listen to. I've said time and time again that all these QB's have been doing this for 30 years even on the Texans team as Leinart talked about it being done on every team he played on. At the end of the day, you can't just blame one guy for something just because you want him to be guilty, and say that you're out for league justice. If anyone should be punished then it should be the HC. It's his team and his players. Picking one guy, because you assume he is the guilty party with no proof and it being based on his position is not a legitimate charge. You're ultimately saying they are guilty all because you say so.

Even assuming that wanting him to be guilty is the primary driving force in this, to this point, this has been in front of four different judges - The initial judge, and the three judge appelate panel - and two of the four have said you can, so any statement that says "You can't just..." is by definition wrong.

And while those four judges have split down the middle - and perhaps a larger pool of judges would do the same if given the chance - that's very likely no longer the issue. Given the past statistics cited earlier in this thread, the chance of getting it reviewed are pretty miniscule. So unless the highly unexpected happens, all of your "You can't just..." statements will end up being "They did just..." reality.

 

[Texecutioner]

Even assuming that wanting him to be guilty is the primary driving force in this, to this point, this has been in front of four different judges - The initial judge, and the three judge appelate panel - and two of the four have said you can, so any statement that says "You can't just..." is by definition wrong.

And while those four judges have split down the middle - and perhaps a larger pool of judges would do the same if given the chance - that's very likely no longer the issue. Given the past statistics cited earlier in this thread, the chance of getting it reviewed are pretty miniscule. So unless the highly unexpected happens, all of your "You can't just..." statements will end up being "They did just..." reality.

I'm not saying the league may not win. They might. Their agreement pretty much lets them do what they want. The issue at hand is whether or not if they can get away with just picking some dude out and delacaring that he did something because God said it or because Goodall's dog told him who was guilty. Can he still punish someone without any real knowledge of them being guilty of what they're saying they're being punished for? If Goodell wins this, he basically can show up next week and suspend Cam Newton for 4 games and say that he told the sound guys in the stadium to create fake crowd noise, so Cam gets the suspension instead of the team getting punished or the HC. He could just declare Cam as the guilty party because he says so. Sounds silly, but he could.

 

[infantrycak]

They didn't just pick some random dude out. A complaint was made resulting in an investigation which then went to the one logical player who might have called for it. The whole thing didn't even start with the league, but with the Colts.

 

[Texecutioner]

They didn't just pick some random dude out. A complaint was made resulting in an investigation which then went to the one logical player who might have called for it. The whole thing didn't even start with the league, but with the Colts.

Logical, yes. Factual no.

 

[infantrycak]

Logical, yes. Factual no.

Brady's preference was factual as was his destruction of evidence.

But we'll never resolve this so have a good one.

 

[Texecutioner]

Brady's preference was factual as was his destruction of evidence.

But we'll never resolve this so have a good one.

How do you know that his phone was evidence? Him not handing it over to them does not make it so. His history of a preference does not either. It just creates a strong and reasonable suspicion. Suspending a guy based on an assumption could still be logically used towards other players on the offense. Allowing a commish to just pick one dude out without any proof goes against rules of fairness. The only fair way to me is to punish the coach if you're going to punish someone. After all, it is widely known that some of the harsh punishment wreaks from Spygate, but the players had nothing to do with that. That was the coaching staff. Brady has literally zero transgressions throughout his career on or off the field.Their HC is the guy that has the checkered history. Not some random player they decided was guilty based on his position he plays.

 

[steelbtexan]

I'm not saying the league may not win. They might. Their agreement pretty much lets them do what they want. The issue at hand is whether or not if they can get away with just picking some dude out and delacaring that he did something because God said it or because Goodall's dog told him who was guilty. Can he still punish someone without any real knowledge of them being guilty of what they're saying they're being punished for? If Goodell wins this, he basically can show up next week and suspend Cam Newton for 4 games and say that he told the sound guys in the stadium to create fake crowd noise, so Cam gets the suspension instead of the team getting punished or the HC. He could just declare Cam as the guilty party because he says so. Sounds silly, but he could.

This is what geets me, Proof isn't necessary.

It happened in bountygate and Tags reigned God'ell in. If this happens to Brady then God'ell is literally KING of the NFL. He can do whatever/whenever/to whoever he chooses.

I cant wait for the CBA to expire, there will be a strike and for the 1st time ever I will be on the NFLPA side of the argument. This is the owners fault for letting God'ell's powers go unchecked and I truly hope they get what they've brought on themselves.

John Mara is certainly no Wellington Mara.

 

[JB]

This is what geets me, Proof isn't necessary.

It happened in bountygate and Tags reigned God'ell in. If this happens to Brady then God'ell is literally KING of the NFL. He can do whatever/whenever/to whoever he chooses.

I cant wait for the CBA to expire, there will be a strike and for the 1st time ever I will be on the NFLPA side of the argument. This is the owners fault for letting God'ell's powers go unchecked and I truly hope they get what they've brought on themselves.

John Mara is certainly no Wellington Mara.

This may be exactly what the owners want. Have you heard any outcry from any of them other than Kraft? Even he didn't put up much resistance

 

[ChampionTexan]

I cant wait for the CBA to expire, there will be a strike and for the 1st time ever I will be on the NFLPA side of the argument. This is the owners fault for letting God'ell's powers go unchecked and I truly hope they get what they've brought on themselves.

John Mara is certainly no Wellington Mara.

First, it's exactly halfway through the 10 year term of the current CBA, so if your crystal ball is good enough to predict the labor landscape (for lack of a better way of putting it) 5 years down the road, more power to you.

Secondly, if the CBA had ended after last season (ie: negotiations were going on now), I don't believe there's any way in heck that the players give up one dime of a salary cap that is now roughly $32 Million higher than in the last uncapped season of the previous CBA as a result of a few of their peers dealing with this issue. Think of all the players who've been impacted by this issue, and then realize every single player you don't think of likely cares less about the issue than you do - if they even care at all. The reason it didn't get addressed in the current CBA was because dollars overrode the concern about the issue, and I don't see any reason to believe the average NFLPA member has had a fundamental change of heart about that since then.

Ironically, I believe the best chance it has to be changed is if the owners decide that they would rather go with the dollars than the control, and make the offer to give in on the discipline procedures in return for something more tangible in regard to dollars and cents (Do you suppose the NFL owners are even familiar with the concept of "cents"?). But the bottom line is in real life negotiations, you don't get a concession unless you have leverage, or are willing to give up something in return. As it stands today, the NFLPA doesn't have leverage, nor do I believe there's anything they currently have they'd be willing to give up in order to get a win on this issue.

We'll find out in the first half of 2021.

 

[steelbtexan]

First, it's exactly halfway through the 10 year term of the current CBA, so if your crystal ball is good enough to predict the labor landscape (for lack of a better way of putting it) 5 years down the road, more power to you.

Secondly, if the CBA had ended after last season (ie: negotiations were going on now), I don't believe there's any way in heck that the players give up one dime of a salary cap that is now roughly $32 Million higher than in the last uncapped season of the previous CBA as a result of a few of their peers dealing with this issue. Think of all the players who've been impacted by this issue, and then realize every single player you don't think of hasn't been. The reason it didn't get addressed in the current CBA was because dollars overrode the concern about the issue, and I don't see any reason to believe the average NFLPA member has had a fundamental change of heart about that since then.

Ironically, I believe the best chance it has to be changed is if the owners decide that they would rather go with the dollars than the control, and make the offer to give in on the discipline procedures in return for something more tangible in regard to dollars and cents (Do you suppose the NFL owners are even familiar with the concept of "cents"?). But the bottom line is in real life negotiations, you don't get a concession unless you have leverage, or are willing to give up something in return. As it stands today, the NFLPA doesn't have leverage, nor to I believe there's anything they currently have they'd be willing to give up in order to get a win on this issue.

We'll find out in the first half of 2021.

1st part, times are changing and if DeMaurice Smith's incompetence is gone and a Gene Upshaw type leader is installed then there will be change. The one thing that has changed since the CBA was ratified is that the diehard fanbase will be siding with the NFLPA in the next rd of negs. This will cause TV networks to place more pressure on the owners and this will lead to an arbitrary system for disciplinary action. This will happen whether God'ell is still the commish or not. Or the owners will have to give up a much bigger piece of the pie.

I could see the NFL owners facing the same fate as MLB owners did when their players struck. Why? because longtime fans like me will probably go to fewer games and spend less $$$$ on the NFL, just like I've done with the MLB. TV contracts will rule the day. This is what the players have going for them in their favor. IMHO

I totally agree with the 2nd part of your post. If the owners are smart they will take the $$$$ and cut a deal on the discipline.

 

[steelbtexan]

First, it's exactly halfway through the 10 year term of the current CBA, so if your crystal ball is good enough to predict the labor landscape (for lack of a better way of putting it) 5 years down the road, more power to you.

Secondly, if the CBA had ended after last season (ie: negotiations were going on now), I don't believe there's any way in heck that the players give up one dime of a salary cap that is now roughly $32 Million higher than in the last uncapped season of the previous CBA as a result of a few of their peers dealing with this issue. Think of all the players who've been impacted by this issue, and then realize every single player you don't think of hasn't been. The reason it didn't get addressed in the current CBA was because dollars overrode the concern about the issue, and I don't see any reason to believe the average NFLPA member has had a fundamental change of heart about that since then.

Ironically, I believe the best chance it has to be changed is if the owners decide that they would rather go with the dollars than the control, and make the offer to give in on the discipline procedures in return for something more tangible in regard to dollars and cents (Do you suppose the NFL owners are even familiar with the concept of "cents"?). But the bottom line is in real life negotiations, you don't get a concession unless you have leverage, or are willing to give up something in return. As it stands today, the NFLPA doesn't have leverage, nor to I believe there's anything they currently have they'd be willing to give up in order to get a win on this issue.

We'll find out in the first half of 2021.

1st part, times are changing and if DeMaurice Smith's incompetence is gone and a Gene Upshaw type leader is installed then there will be change. The one thing that has changed since the CBA was ratified is that the diehard fanbase will be siding with the NFLPA in the next rd of negs. This will cause TV networks to place more pressure on the owners and this will lead to an arbitrary system for disciplinary action. This will happen whether God'ell is still the commish or not. Or the owners will have to give up a much bigger piece of the pie.

I could see the NFL owners facing the same fate as MLB owners did when their players struck. Why? because longtime fans like me will probably go to fewer games and spend less $$$$ on the NFL, just like I've done with the MLB. TV contracts will rule the day. This is what the players have going for them in their favor. IMHO

I totally agree with the 2nd part of your post. If the owners are smart they will take the $$$$ and cut a deal on the discipline.

 

[steelbtexan]

This may be exactly what the owners want. Have you heard any outcry from any of them other than Kraft? Even he didn't put up much resistance

You may be correct and if you are my interest in the NFL will wane more than if already has. It's sad that I now look forward to the draft more than I do the season, due to all of the silly Catch/no catch/personal foul for hard hits/Bountygate/Inflategate BS.

 

[Texecutioner]

This is what geets me, Proof isn't necessary.

It happened in bountygate and Tags reigned God'ell in. If this happens to Brady then God'ell is literally KING of the NFL. He can do whatever/whenever/to whoever he chooses.

I cant wait for the CBA to expire, there will be a strike and for the 1st time ever I will be on the NFLPA side of the argument. This is the owners fault for letting God'ell's powers go unchecked and I truly hope they get what they've brought on themselves.

John Mara is certainly no Wellington Mara.

That is what none of these blood thirsty fans who want to see Brady vilified understand. These same fans that are perfectly okay with Goodell totally railroading a guy that they have no evidence or proof on are going to lose as a result. The player's association and the owners are going to be at a stalemate forever when this next CBA expires. No way the players allow themselves to be in such an unfair position ever again. The owners will fight tooth and nail to keep that alive, and in the end the fans will be the ones that will lose out in this whole thing when the lockout happens and the season goes into jeopardy. I don't think any of the owners care about Brady missing games or if he was involved with the deflation of some game balls. I think all they care about is preserving the power of their CBA agreement. They know they're fucked once this one expires, and they'll be in for a long long battle. The fans that want the commish to railroad players of teams they don't like aren't seeing the bigger picture as a whole in where it effects them.

 

[Texecutioner]

This may be exactly what the owners want. Have you heard any outcry from any of them other than Kraft? Even he didn't put up much resistance

I've seen articles stating that many are very tired of this and want it to go away.

They obviously would hate to lose though, because it opens up a huge can of works for other players to challenge them in the future. If they win it would likely stop a lot of players from challenging them if they see that Brady went this far, and lost in the end. That might make a guy just take an unlawful and unfair suspension or one that he disagrees with. I think the majority of the owners would love for this to go away from a reporting standpoint, but from a labor issue, they are likely all afraid of what the repercussions would be with other players if they don't get their way here.

 

[ChampionTexan]

1st part, times are changing and if DeMaurice Smith's incompetence is gone and a Gene Upshaw type leader is installed then there will be change. The one thing that has changed since the CBA was ratified is that the diehard fanbase will be siding with the NFLPA in the next rd of negs. This will cause TV networks to place more pressure on the owners and this will lead to an arbitrary system for disciplinary action. This will happen whether God'ell is still the commish or not. Or the owners will have to give up a much bigger piece of the pie.

I could see the NFL owners facing the same fate as MLB owners did when their players struck. Why? because longtime fans like me will probably go to fewer games and spend less $$$$ on the NFL, just like I've done with the MLB. TV contracts will rule the day. This is what the players have going for them in their favor. IMHO

I totally agree with the 2nd part of your post. If the owners are smart they will take the $$$$ and cut a deal on the discipline.

Unless and until it blows up in their faces (and it won't anytime soon), the TV networks will side with the Owners, as that's who their contract is with, and that's who pays them. Secondly, while I certainly understand there's a lot of dislike for Goodell out there, I don't see that as translating to lots of folks siding with the NFLPA. They don't like Goodell, but with the exception of the players for their team, there's no love loss for the players who could be considered victims of the NFL's discipline policy either. While it may be biased, and far less than objective, I'm guessing that the fans who are happy to see the Patriots future HoF QB take one on the chin far outnumber the Pats fans/Goodell haters, and non-Patriot fans who for whatever reason feel outrage over the way it looks like deflate-gate is going. The vast majority of folks won't care who wins and who loses the CBA as long as they don't miss any football - just like last time. It's billionaires negotiating with millionaires - that eliminates a sentimental favorite for most folks.

 

[JB]

I've seen articles stating that many are very tired of this and want it to go away.

I've seen articles where the owners are tired of it being the news, not that they are dissatisfied with Goodell and how he's doing his job

 

[Texecutioner]

Unless and until it blows up in their faces (and it won't anytime soon), the TV networks will side with the Owners, as that's who their contract is with, and that's who pays them. Secondly, while I certainly understand there's a lot of dislike for Goodell out there, I don't see that as translating to lots of folks siding with the NFLPA. They don't like Goodell, but with the exception of the players for their team, there's no love loss for the players who could be considered victims of the NFL's discipline policy either. While it may be biased, and far less than objective, I'm guessing that the fans who are happy to see the Patriots future HoF QB take one on the chin far outnumber the Pats fans/Goodell haters, and non-Patriot fans who for whatever reason feel outrage over the way it looks like deflate-gate is going. The vast majority of folks won't care who wins and who loses the CBA as long as they don't miss any football - just like last time. It's billionaires negotiating with millionaires - that eliminates a sentimental favorite for most folks.

Unfortunately, this is all pretty accurate and true I'd say. We shouldn't be okay with it though like you are saying at the end of this paragraph. Taglibue never had this many blunders and poorly handled incidents involving the players. Goodell came in and got all tough as soon as he arrived which was warranted in some cases, but he would F it all up with the punishment standards and he never could show consistency in how the league was set up to discipline players. He was always being scrutinized just in his first three years. He has also created all these penalties and strict rules for celebrations that the majority of fans want and enjoy. The last two years he has had 3 back to back to back cases with Rice, Peterson, and Brady where he did al types of questionable things on each one of them. The league definitely needs some sort of disciplinary program, but the NFL has never been able to establish a consistent set of guidelines to refer to and reference. They've just been all over the place. Some players they've allowed to get away with everything with little consequence while they've taken others and thrown them off a bridge.

 

[infantrycak]

Taglibuenever had this many blunders and poorly handled incidents involving the players.

Tagliabue didn't have to deal with the internet age and fans demanding action by the league.

That's the thing about this fan uprising steelbtexan predicts - the league would just as soon say "the punishment for a criminal matter is whatever the justice system metes out." They don't because fans want action by the league or it is tacit approval.

 

[Texecutioner]

Tagliabue didn't have to deal with the internet age and fans demanding action by the league.

That's the thing about this fan uprising steelbtexan predicts - the league would just as soon say "the punishment for a criminal matter is whatever the justice system metes out." They don't because fans want action by the league or it is tacit approval.

That is true, but media was still big back then. It was Goodell that came in and started making it a no fun league, and throwing out the disciplinary punishments all over the place. It wasn't that it was a bad precedent. It was a good one. He just had such a knack for mishandling them one by one, and had no consistency on how he was issuing out his suspensions. He was all over the place. He also had the dragged out negotiation with the refs years ago that cost the Packers a game in the regular season. It just seems like every season we have some big story involving how badly the NFL operated in a situation, and Goodell is either lying around it, or having to explain himself. The owners could get a ton of other guys that could make them the same amount of money without all of the extra riff raff that Goodell brings, because he can't ever handle things effectively.

 

[steelbtexan]

Tagliabue didn't have to deal with the internet age and fans demanding action by the league.

That's the thing about this fan uprising steelbtexan predicts - the league would just as soon say "the punishment for a criminal matter is whatever the justice system metes out." They don't because fans want action by the league or it is tacit approval.

When did fans start wanting the action you're talking about?

It certainly wasn't under Tags regime.

God'ell is the one who brought all of this crap to light. Do you really think the fans cared about bountygate/deflategate? He** no they could really care less about this kind of crap. If you think differently you're kidding yourself.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

1st part, times are changing and if DeMaurice Smith's incompetence is gone and a Gene Upshaw type leader is installed then there will be change. The one thing that has changed since the CBA was ratified is that the diehard fanbase will be siding with the NFLPA in the next rd of negs. This will cause TV networks to place more pressure on the owners and this will lead to an arbitrary system for disciplinary action. This will happen whether God'ell is still the commish or not. Or the owners will have to give up a much bigger piece of the pie.

I could see the NFL owners facing the same fate as MLB owners did when their players struck. Why? because longtime fans like me will probably go to fewer games and spend less $$$$ on the NFL, just like I've done with the MLB. TV contracts will rule the day. This is what the players have going for them in their favor. IMHO

I totally agree with the 2nd part of your post. If the owners are smart they will take the $$$$ and cut a deal on the discipline.

The effect on the MLB example probably would not correlate very well at all to enough fans dropping interest in the NFL to lead to a similar effect. This is simply based on the fact that filling stadiums for 162 games for an ave attendance of 25,000 fans per game is much more difficult than filling NFL stadiums for only 17 games for an ave attendance of over 65,000 fans per game. NFL fans have been complaining about being "abused" for one reason or another forever.......and for every 1 fan ready to give up their tickets, there are still a load standing in line to take up the slack.

 

[steelbtexan]

The effect on the MLB example probably would not correlate very well at all to enough fans dropping interest in the NFL to lead to a similar effect. This is simply based on the fact that filling stadiums for 162 games for an ave attendance of 25,000 fans per game is much more difficult than filling NFL stadiums for only 17 games for an ave attendance of over 65,000 fans per game. NFL fans have been complaining about being "abused" for one reason or another forever.......and for every 1 fan ready to give up their tickets, there are still a load standing in line to take up the slack.

While this may be true,

I believe Mark Cuban had it correct

The next Labor negs will end in a strike, which will end in a 1987 type strike, only this time the hardcore fans will be on the players side and the TV networks will be pushing the owners very hard to get a deal done.

I say this with the preface that DeMaurice Smith wont be the head of the NFLPA. If he is then the owners got off of the hook again and the players will get what they deserve.

The hardcore fans will be the 2nd biggest losers, coming in 2nd to the players who got what they deserve.

 

[infantrycak]

Why in the world would I give enough crap about a couple mistakes in investigation/punishment a season to be all up in arms and raise a banner for the players walking out 99% for more money?

You hate Goodell so your dancing a prediction on his hopeful grave.

Most fans don't want to miss any games period.

 

[steelbtexan]

Why in the world would I give enough crap about a couple mistakes in investigation/punishment a season to be all up in arms and raise a banner for the players walking out 99% for more money?

You hate Goodell so your dancing a prediction on his hopeful grave.

Most fans don't want to miss any games period.

You really dont care about much of anything, so why should somebody that is obviously incompetentent/biased/crooked at his job be any different.

Just give me my damned rigged football.

 

[infantrycak]

You really dont care about much of anything, so why should somebody that is obviously incompetentent/biased/crooked at his job be any different.

Just give me my damned rigged football.

I care about plenty - folks selling unsafe products, companies bilking shareholders, gov't trying to spend us to death while stripping rights, etc.

The internal squabbles between millionaires and billionaires that 99% of the time do not affect the play in an entertainment - not so much. I want the entertainment.

 

[steelbtexan]

I care about plenty - folks selling unsafe products, companies bilking shareholders, gov't trying to spend us to death while stripping rights, etc.

The internal squabbles between millionaires and billionaires that 99% of the time do not affect the play in an entertainment - not so much. I want the entertainment.

I get it, you care about what makes you $$$$.

We have that in common.

 

[Wolf]

Just heard the patriots now joined in against Roger..this could get interesting when a team gets involved. Seems like teams usually dont buck the system

 

[steelbtexan]

Just heard the patriots now joined in against Roger..this could get interesting when a team gets involved. Seems like teams usually dont buck the system

About time

 

[Texecutioner]

I care about plenty - folks selling unsafe products, companies bilking shareholders, gov't trying to spend us to death while stripping rights, etc.

The internal squabbles between millionaires and billionaires that 99% of the time do not affect the play in an entertainment - not so much. I want the entertainment.

Most fans say this until the situation is effecting someone on their team. Then they want all types of changes made, and can't understand how something like that could happen. Its similar to folks who have had great health insurance for years at a company, and then one day don't have it anymore and they deal with the system on different terms and then they change their tune real fast. When you see an obvious problem, you don't just ignore it until it effects you and your interests. One thing is for certain, eventually it will.

 

[infantrycak]

Nope, not a whose ox is being gored deal. I simply don't see the 1-2 botched investigations/penalties a year affecting the overall on field quality of the entertainment enough to consider it anything more than an internal matter.

I also don't care if the director of a film is a screaming narcissist, the lead male a primadonna who walks off set if there aren't exactly 3 blueberries in his scone and the leading female is snorting coke out of a horse's feed bag. Was the movie good?

It's entertainment - the part I see is the part that counts.