Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

What is your idea of Settlement? Serious replies (moderated!)


ColtsBlueFL

Recommended Posts

Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 14, 2015 - off the topic Florio post
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 14, 2015 - off the topic Florio post

As we discuss settlement possibilities, Florio wrote today that there is a compelling reason for the NFL to settle - the NY court could become the default option for any litigation arising from player suspensions resolved by Goodell:

 

For the NFL, there’s also a bigger picture to keep in mind. If Judge Berman’s ruling contains broader observations regarding the inability of Commissioner Roger Goodell to appoint himself to impartially handle these appeals personally, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will become the new default option for any litigation arising from player suspensions resolved by Goodell.

 

And if the NFL tries to get cute and pre-emptively filed a lawsuit defending the ruling in some other state the next time around (like the league did with Brady), it will be much more difficult to get the federal court where the league office is located to punt, the way the Minnesota federal court did.

 

It’s unclear whether the NFL is worried about this case operating as a de facto stripping of Goodell’s final say, but it should be. Judge Berman could craft a decision that, if it survives on appeal, could become binding legal precedent in the jurisdiction where The Shield resides.

 

Speaking of an appeal, that raises the stakes even higher for the NFL. If the appeals court agrees with Judge Berman, then it all becomes a much stronger precedent for future cases.

 

It’s another big reason for the NFL to settle the case at a time when the NFL seems to have no interest in doing so.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/13/nfl-has-more-to-lose-than-the-brady-case/

Link to comment
  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The NFL tried to work out a 1 game suspension but that didn't pan out. I don't think this case will ever end to tell you the truth. Both are sticking by their guns no matter what the judge says. I believe Brady is guilty and I think a 2 game suspension would be sufficient, but who am I to say? Brady should feel lucky that he plays in the NFL and not in another sport/organization. People complain about Goodell over every suspension saying how it is unfair. Anderson Silva is suspended until February of 2016 for PEDs. Jenrry Meija suspended for 162 games for PEDs, once more before hand in April for 80 games. Donald Sterling, former owner of LA Clippers, banned entirely from the NBA for just stating a racist opinion in private. lol Tom has it easy, even if he did serve only 4 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.  

 

I guess I midunderstood you in your opening post that this would just be a thread about what we thought would be a reasonable settlement, and not all the other scuttlebutt.

 

 

Dont feel bad, that was my understanding as well.............................

 

I'm so sick of hearing about this crap, is it football season yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, only settlement opinions please, from members.  The court stuff is played out, and anyone can read websites for media outlet opinions  and specualtions. This is what forum members would like to see, and newly released official court info only.  Please stay on topic, to keep the thread clean (er).  Thank you.

 

** Nadine has the knacks, don't be a Zax!  **

 

:-)

 

Please weigh in, but be respectful with names (officials, players, etc.) when you do.  The fun ones to read (to me) are what you would like to happen, and followed by what you believe actually will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The judge didn't just ask questions. He offered his opinion as well. See this following exchange between Berman and Pash which includes the commentary from Brown who was the person sending out the tweets during the hearing:

 

Berman: Turns out Mr. Brady did better with higher inflated balls than underinflated balls. You might say he got no competitive advantage.

Berman: "Is there any direct evidence linking Mr. Brady to tampering?"

Berman grilling Nash on why some evidence used in Wells report wasn't shared with Brady team. Nash says it was privileged.

Nash says Wells was retained "just to get the facts." Berman skeptical of Wells' dual role as investigator and attorney hired by NFL.

Berman now turning to supposed "independence" of Wells Report commissioned by Goodell

Berman: I’m trying to figure out what is the direct evidence that implicates Mr. Brady in that deflation…in that bathroom…on Jan. 18

Nash: "Is there a text in which Mr. Brady instructs someone to put a needle in a football? No there is not such direct evidence."

Berman: I don't know what to make of that finding Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the activities of" Mcnally, Jastremski.

Berman: From legal perspective: "You have to show that conspirators intended to be in the conspiracy...Is there a meeting?"

Berman: "I’m not sure where the 'gate' (in #DeflateGate) comes from. The Wells Report and the award relates only to one game."

Berman: "What is the evidence of a scheme or conspiracy that covers the Jan. 18 game? I’m having trouble finding it." 

 

 

 

 

If he's really considering that Tom Brady had a great half of football with the inflated balls and thus had no competitive advantage , he is a *. That would be similar to Lance Armstrong winning a race without doping and saying all the doping didn't matter. Plus Brady has already said that he prefers a "softer" ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he's really considering that Tom Brady had a great half of football with the inflated balls and thus had no competitive advantage , he is a *. That would be similar to Lance Armstrong winning a race without doping and saying all the doping didn't matter. Plus Brady has already said that he prefers a "softer" ball. 

I think what he is getting at is competitive advantage gained and trying to understand why Roger is equating air ball pressure violation with PED use. This goes back to precedent/punishment I believe.

 

All that being said, please PM me to discuss further as CB wants to keep this thread to just about settlement talk opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he's really considering that Tom Brady had a great half of football with the inflated balls and thus had no competitive advantage , he is a *. That would be similar to Lance Armstrong winning a race without doping and saying all the doping didn't matter. Plus Brady has already said that he prefers a "softer" ball. 

Agreed, the game got out of hand. Luck was throwing home run balls to that secondary all half trying to catch up every possession. Saying it had no difference because the Patriots scored more points in the second half is such a lazy excuse and a complete cop out. The gameplan of the Colts offense is completely changed in the second half when you are down more and more points and losing critical time with every play.

 

You try to rig something but to your surprise in this instance you do better when things are normal, I guess that makes it ok? Not even noting that the first half of deflated footballs sets up the entire second half. The first half when they were running it down our throats in the rain and holding onto it in a somewhat close game leading us to throw interceptions and try to get the game back with one throw every time we are out there, bringing the D back out there leads to more points for the other team. No judge can be naive enough to overlook that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he is getting at is competitive advantage gained and trying to understand why Roger is equating air ball pressure violation with PED use. This goes back to precedent/punishment I believe.

 

All that being said, please PM me to discuss further as CB wants to keep this thread to just about settlement talk opinions.

Exactly...now back to topic. Since Tom resides in the Boston area, I think it would be appropriate that he admits his guilt and subjects himself to a good old fashioned stoning like they did back in the Salem witch hunt days. Lets quit spending our tax dollars on this nonsense . C'mon Tom..take one for the team!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he is getting at is competitive advantage gained and trying to understand why Roger is equating air ball pressure violation with PED use. This goes back to precedent/punishment I believe.

 

All that being said, please PM me to discuss further as CB wants to keep this thread to just about settlement talk opinions.

 

 

Geez... I really did forget what this thread was supposed to be. My bad for sure .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the NFLPA briefs filed yesterday, it confirms in my mind that no settlement is possible here. Brady (whether you believe him or not) is adamant that he is 100% innocent of the accusations the league leveled against him. The league seems to be adamant not just that he IS guilty, but that he also needs to publically declare it and validate the findings of the Wells report. I think both sides are ok with the "all or nothing" proposition of a court ruling. Win or lose, it's a FAR more  appealing alternative for both sides. Any settlement the league agrees to that doesn't include an admission of guilt is going to leave them looking like the "pants around ankles" clowns they look like in all of these situations, especially after a federal judge just put their $3M report on trial and validated many/most of the criticisms that report had taken from Brady supporters. As shaky as the Wells report looked before, at least the NFL could claim that it was only biased Pats supporters who weren't buying it. Now, a neutral judge is on record as not buying it. So they seem to need Brady to step up and say "ok...you got me...that Wells report really nailed it", otherwise that report will forever be remembered as a $3M fools errand.

 

From Brady's side, it's pretty simple. He believes 100% in his innocence. He has a judge here who is clearly skeptical of the findings the NFL has against him. The worst case scenario for him is that the judge sides with the NFL's authority under the CBA to essentially do whatever it wants and he sits 4 games. I think he looks better in the long run if the judge were to rule on the case by publically stating that he doesn't find any evidence supporting the league's claim against him, but unfortunately he has to side with their right to hand out this punishment based on the language of the CBA than if he were to accept a game and/or a fine.

 

So to sum it up, I truly believe we're at a place where the damage to both sides from any type of settlement would be worse than the damage either side would suffer from going all the way and losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the NFLPA briefs filed yesterday, it confirms in my mind that no settlement is possible here. Brady (whether you believe him or not) is adamant that he is 100% innocent of the accusations the league leveled against him. The league seems to be adamant not just that he IS guilty, but that he also needs to publically declare it and validate the findings of the Wells report. I think both sides are ok with the "all or nothing" proposition of a court ruling. Win or lose, it's a FAR more  appealing alternative for both sides. Any settlement the league agrees to that doesn't include an admission of guilt is going to leave them looking like the "pants around ankles" clowns they look like in all of these situations, especially after a federal judge just put their $3M report on trial and validated many/most of the criticisms that report had taken from Brady supporters. As shaky as the Wells report looked before, at least the NFL could claim that it was only biased Pats supporters who weren't buying it. Now, a neutral judge is on record as not buying it. So they seem to need Brady to step up and say "ok...you got me...that Wells report really nailed it", otherwise that report will forever be remembered as a $3M fools errand.

 

From Brady's side, it's pretty simple. He believes 100% in his innocence. He has a judge here who is clearly skeptical of the findings the NFL has against him. The worst case scenario for him is that the judge sides with the NFL's authority under the CBA to essentially do whatever it wants and he sits 4 games. I think he looks better in the long run if the judge were to rule on the case by publically stating that he doesn't find any evidence supporting the league's claim against him, but unfortunately he has to side with their right to hand out this punishment based on the language of the CBA than if he were to accept a game and/or a fine.

 

So to sum it up, I truly believe we're at a place where the damage to both sides from any type of settlement would be worse than the damage either side would suffer from going all the way and losing.

I agree for the most part but I do think from the NFL side they do not want Berman to potentially limit Goodell's power with disciplinary power so they have that to consider which is bigger than just Brady. There is real risk to the NFL more so than Brady because in the end it is just four games and the judge has already indicated to the NFL that the Wells report simply does not pass the sniffer test. That being said, I do not expect a settlement either after reading the briefs last night but things have a way of coming to a head right before the storm so maybe something gets done Tuesday. I do wonder if the Judge may ratchet things up by calling witnesses to testify. There are reports that JJ and McNally will NOT be called given they did not testify at the appeal and there will be a geographical limitation given they are 100 miles away from NY. It is possible that Berman could ask Wells to testify given his report is the center of the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I do wonder if the Judge may ratchet things up by calling witnesses to testify. There are reports that JJ and McNally will NOT be called given they did not testify at the appeal and there will be a geographical limitation given they are 100 miles away from NY. It is possible that Berman could ask Wells to testify given his report is the center of the whole thing.

Surely, you're kidding here....???  haha

 

Calling witnesses, yet leaving out the two that hold the key to the whole mess.    :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - reposding to hidden
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - reposding to hidden

Brady has lied through his teeth for 6 months, of course he is going to maintain his innocence.

 

What is his end game? What do you think he thinks he will gain from lying? I mean you are of course entitled to believe that and for all anyone knows you are right...but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Liars typically lie with an end-goal in sight. In Brady's case, I would think that would be to reduce his punishment...yet the steps he's taken in declaring his innocence under oath have effectively closed most of the doors on any reduction, barring the 'Hail Mary' option of the judge ruling in his favor.

Link to comment

Surely, you're kidding here....???   haha

 

Calling witnesses, yet leaving out the two that hold the key to the whole mess.    :facepalm:

Those have been the reports I have been reading. I did find it odd that the league did not call them as witnesses during Brady's appeal so perhaps their testimony is more damaging to the league than helpful. I don't know. But Berman could have them participate via video from another court location given the geographical limitation if he wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - Obnoxious trolling/lying
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - Obnoxious trolling/lying

McNally and Jastremski were both interviewed multiple times by Wells, neither of their interviews were included in the Wells report. That to me says a lot. My guess is that had either one of them admitted to ball deflation and/or to Brady's involvement in it, that would have been the #1 in bold letters story in the report. Instead, they aren't in it at all. Doesn't that pretty much make it evident that they both said repeatedly that nothing went on?

Link to comment

If he's really considering that Tom Brady had a great half of football with the inflated balls and thus had no competitive advantage , he is a *. That would be similar to Lance Armstrong winning a race without doping and saying all the doping didn't matter. Plus Brady has already said that he prefers a "softer" ball. 

The competitive advantage has little to do with Brady, which is why he played just fine with the legal footballs.  It is all about the Patriot fumbling statistics and I have no doubt that he is well aware of the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The competitive advantage has little to do with Brady, which is why he played just fine with the legal footballs.  It is all about the Patriot fumbling statistics and I have no doubt that he is well aware of the advantage.

you realize the fumbling thing has been debunked, right? http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - response to hidden
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - response to hidden

McNally and Jastremski were both interviewed multiple times by Wells, neither of their interviews were included in the Wells report. That to me says a lot. My guess is that had either one of them admitted to ball deflation and/or to Brady's involvement in it, that would have been the #1 in bold letters story in the report. Instead, they aren't in it at all. Doesn't that pretty much make it evident that they both said repeatedly that nothing went on?

We're remembering this differently, big surprise. And we're not supposed to be rehashing here.

I'll end with one comment.

If witnesses are to be called, certainly those two will be at the top of the list.

Link to comment

It appears that the NFL may have screwed up by filing in the 2nd CA. According to what's being reported:

(“New York law recognizes that definitive, particularized contract language

takes precedence over expressions of intent that are general, summary, or preliminary.”).

(CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -v THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendant.)

In other words, Berman may rule, based on his own circuit's precedent, that because the CBA has a SPECIFIC penalty for equipment tampering ($$$), that it supersedes any claim by Goodell of a general conspiracy (of which Berman himself says that there's no evidence of).

So, based on NY law, Brady can only be fined, per the specific CBA laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - reposding to hidden
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - reposding to hidden

What is his end game? What do you think he thinks he will gain from lying? I mean you are of course entitled to believe that and for all anyone knows you are right...but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Liars typically lie with an end-goal in sight. In Brady's case, I would think that would be to reduce his punishment...yet the steps he's taken in declaring his innocence under oath have effectively closed most of the doors on any reduction, barring the 'Hail Mary' option of the judge ruling in his favor.

People lie to cover up a wrong doing. He is too arrogant to think he'll get rumbled, so the lies continue. And all about nothing really.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - warn worthypersonal shot
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - warn worthypersonal shot

People lie to cover up a wrong doing. He is too arrogant to think he'll get rumbled, so the lies continue. And all about nothing really.

Gotta love how you throw out random claims with zero evidence. Pretty sure that you're the liar here.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - response to hidden
Hidden by ColtsBlueFL, August 15, 2015 - response to hidden

Gotta love how you throw out random claims with zero evidence. Pretty sure that you're the liar here.

Pray, what evidence do you have that I'm lying kind sir? I'm betting you don't have any. So let's move on and not derail the thread.

Link to comment

Cut the baby in half. (Behind closed doors and see what happens!)

btw ... for those of you who are not in the know ... Google the opening sentence above!

Everyone knows how I stand.

Maybe I should've been a little more clearer. Judge Berman should give a _STRONG_ indication of how he will decide this to both sides behind closed doors (most likely at the last phase of trying to settle), and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** Remember, this is a heavily moderated thread.  Please keep on topic, or respond with official released news (not media head speculations) from the court that is likely to affect the upcoming ruling.

 

This is not a thread to rehash previous discussions, or get another chance to lash out at another member.  Please post and respond accordingly.  Thanks in advance. ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some legal expert suggest on the radio the judge might up hold the four game suspension but Brady wouldn't have to admit the finding of the Wells report are correct. They based that on Wells saying more than once suggesting settling is what needed to happen so if the judge has to rule he will do so in away that makes both sides unhappy.

I also heard Mort say that he thinks the judge was trying to force both sides to settle with the hearing the other day and we shouldn't read too much into it as he thinks it was scare tactics to make both sides settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some legal expert suggest on the radio the judge might up hold the four game suspension but Brady wouldn't have to admit the finding of the Wells report are correct. They based that on Wells saying more than once suggesting settling is what needed to happen so if the judge has to rule he will do so in away that makes both sides unhappy.

I also heard Mort say that he thinks the judge was trying to force both sides to settle with the hearing the other day and we shouldn't read too much into it as he thinks it was scare tactics to make both sides settle.

I think Berman may ratchet up the tactics this week prior to Wednesday. Should be interesting ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some legal expert suggest on the radio the judge might up hold the four game suspension but Brady wouldn't have to admit the finding of the Wells report are correct. They based that on Wells saying more than once suggesting settling is what needed to happen so if the judge has to rule he will do so in away that makes both sides unhappy.

I also heard Mort say that he thinks the judge was trying to force both sides to settle with the hearing the other day and we shouldn't read too much into it as he thinks it was scare tactics to make both sides settle.

 

 

So he would be ruling totally in favor of the NFL... right ? I fail to see what the above gives to Brady. Are you sure you don't have a typo there ? He serves the 4 games but doesn't admit to wrong doing ? I'm missing something here . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he would be ruling totally in favor of the NFL... right ? I fail to see what the above gives to Brady. Are you sure you don't have a typo there ? He serves the 4 games but doesn't admit to wrong doing ? I'm missing something here .

yes that's what I meant. Pretty much four game suspension stays in tact but no admission of guilt from Brady.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes that's what I meant. Pretty much four game suspension stays in tact but no admission of guilt from Brady.

 

 

They certainly can't make Brady admit to anything so I don't get why anyone (he radio report) would mention that in a ruling that the suspension would be upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be no settlement. The players gave Goodell the power to be God. However, the players did not give Goodell the power to be an unjust God. Brady's suspension will be vacated.

The thing about giving someone ultimate power is that you have done just that. You cannot then say you don't like how they use that power.

 

Cannot have your cake and eat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question posed here was what your idea of a reasonable settlement is.

What is reasonable would have been to never let it get this far.

Now, what is reasonable is for BOTH sides to give some concessions. I still say, 2 games, sealed records and move on with the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...