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

[ColtsBlueFL]

I would make a deal too if I was the NFLMC. But the issue is they don't want to come off the Wells report and Brady would agree to maybe one game but at this point, they way the proceedings are going, I doubt he even agrees to one game. I would not if I was him.

 

Also Kessler dropped off 18 cases to Berman similar to this one in terms of process that were vacated by federal court.

 

Doesn't matter what Kessler dropped off.  The NFLMC already has grounds for appeal, and Berman admits to strengths and weaknesses on either side. The NFLMC likely already drafting it in case the ruling favors the NFLPA.  Goodell will go back and tell the other owners this about them losing some of their power, and they should proceed to appeal, like they have the Ray Rice case; which we will hear about some months down the road.

 

OTOH, depending on how Berman views the CBA regarding judicial review in the NFL, he may still rule for NFLMC as well.  There is precedent and Supreme Court rulings to favor that decision as well.  He is leaning on the NFL heavily to move them off the Brady needs to recognize the Wells report thing, and that means hammering the NFL on the intricacies of it to make them uncomfortable.  But doesn't mean he will definitely Rule for Brady when the rubber meets the road.  He could still go either way, and it is fair to say that the other side will most likely take it to the next level.

 

But it is still apparent, Judge settle this doesn't want to rule on it.  And doing everything he can to get a settlement.  But probablt has never has run against egos like the NFL andFLPA.

[amfootball]

Doesn't matter what Kessler dropped off.  The NFLMC already has grounds for appeal, and Berman admits to strengths and weaknesses on either side. The NFLMC likely already drafting it in case the ruling favors the NFLPA.  Goodell will go back and tell the other owners this about them losing some of their power, and they should proceed to appeal, like they have the Ray Rice case; which we will hear about some months down the road.

 

OTOH, depending on how Berman views the CBA regarding judicial review in the NFL, he may still rule for NFLMC as well.  There is precedent and Supreme Court rulings to favor that decision as well.  He is leaning on the NFL heavily to move them off the Brady needs to recognize the Wells report thing, and that means hammering the NFL on the intricacies of it to make them uncomfortable.  But doesn't mean he will definitely Rule for Brady when the rubber meets the road.  He could still go either way, and it is fair to say that the other side will most likely take it to the next level.

 

But it is still apparent, Judge settle this doesn't want to rule on it.  And doing everything he can to get a settlement.  But probablt has never has run against egos like the NFL andFLPA.

I agree that Berman is trying to move the NFL as they are the ones that need to move for this to settle. Michael McCann said yesterday that as bad as last Wed was for the NFL with Berman attacking the facts of the case, they should be more worried with how he attacked the  process yesterday as the points he brought up - the PA not being able to interview Pash, "general awareness" did not apply to the AFCCG and the comparison of ball deflation to PEDs - are all reasons to vacate as it gets the heart of fair process.

 

That all being said, you are right he could still rule in the NFLs favor but wants a settlement. I think him saying yesterday that neither side should hold him to the Sept 4 date to make a ruling was his way of saying I will let this run into the season if you do not settle which may actually be his best course to force the settlement IMO. If Mara's comments this week were any indication of how the owners feel, they desperately want this to end before real football games begin.

[amfootball]

For me a good settlement would be no suspension, no finding of wrong doing for the underlying crime but sanctions for the act of not handing over the cell phone.  The fact that Brady broke the phone does not matter to me.  For me the non cooperation happened when he initial refused to not hand over his cell.  What happened after that is not relevant to me.

 

I believe that Farve got 50K for not handing over his cell phone.  If the fine is in relation to that, then I would be okay that as being a reasonable settlement.  50K, 100k, 150K, one of those would be okay with me.

 

I think it is bad precedent for a person settling or the court ruling to allow the NFL to come out of the blue and impose something that has never been imposed before for said crime.

 

For me the NFL did not learn its lesson with the Rice case when it tried to impose a larger fine on Rice than has ever been done before.  True that fell on a principle similar to an expo facto application of a new rule, but it not change the point and most critically not different than the principle of imposing a larger penalty than what was expected at the time one commits an infraction.  I see no difference between the Commish establishing a "new rule" and then imposing a larger fine or simply imposing the larger fine.  Both are post infraction larger fines that expected at the time of the infraction. They fall on the same footing for me.  i.e you can not hide behind not established a new rule and just impose the same sanction as if you establish a new rule. 

 

With the above said, this is nothing wrong with the NFL merely following precedent in an instant case, imposing the fines on the books and then thereafter making it known that moving forward we want it to be known that we are going to impose X for Y.  (assuming this would survive a legal challenge).  (i.e. NFL could likely not hold up a rule that stated you will be suspended for life for a sock violation).

 

The bottom line problem is the NFL has never EVER EVER imposed a suspension for non cooperation, and in the 75 plus year history I find no reason to start unannounced in Jan. 2015.  PERIOD.  

 

With respect to the underlying crime I have already made my points on the penalty in my prior post #166.  The crime in question and its closely related relatives do not impose a suspension but merely a fine.  So even if the underlying act was committed by Brady, or proven that he was part of a conspiracy to do so with the two employee and thus be guilty of the underlying crime in this manner, it too does not carry a suspension.

 

As Lady Justice is blind, one, including arbitrators, need to act in this manner and not in a manner that seems to be biased against a given defendant.  And for me one who imposes a penalty that is not in line with prior actions then one can only conclude that the person administering the penalty is doing so in a bias manner.   

Not sure if you saw Richard Sherman comments from yesterday, http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/richard-sherman-deflategate-brady-fined-pats-raises-red/story?id=33199030

 

He talks about a double standard in terms of how players are fined verses owners/mgmt., cites Jim Irsay only getting $500k while Brady would have to pay almost $2 mil in game checks. He raises some great points here. One thing for sure the players are watching this closely as if Brady does have to pay a ridiculous fine for not handing over his personal info or worse serves a suspension even a game, it will set a horrible precedent.

[Gramz]

It's obvious that neither side wants to meet 1/2 way.  This is going to go on for a long time now. 

 

I'm so ready for the season to start and to focus  on football and I'm very anxious to see how this season plays out.

[Nadine]

Not sure if you saw Richard Sherman comments from yesterday, http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/richard-sherman-deflategate-brady-fined-pats-raises-red/story?id=33199030

 

He talks about a double standard in terms of how players are fined verses owners/mgmt., cites Jim Irsay only getting $500k while Brady would have to pay almost $2 mil in game checks. He raises some great points here. One thing for sure the players are watching this closely as if Brady does have to pay a ridiculous fine for not handing over his personal info or worse serves a suspension even a game, it will set a horrible precedent.

This is not about the settlement

[Gramz]

Not sure if you saw Richard Sherman comments from yesterday, http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/richard-sherman-deflategate-brady-fined-pats-raises-red/story?id=33199030

 

He talks about a double standard in terms of how players are fined verses owners/mgmt., cites Jim Irsay only getting $500k while Brady would have to pay almost $2 mil in game checks. He raises some great points here. One thing for sure the players are watching this closely as if Brady does have to pay a ridiculous fine for not handing over his personal info or worse serves a suspension even a game, it will set a horrible precedent.

Well for one thing...... Jim Irsay's problems were personal, and in no way affected the play on the field.

 

There is a difference here.  Some see it clearly,  others need new eye glasses.

[Gramz]

This is not about the settlement

true.  maybe it should just be removed.. ???

[pgt_rob]

Not sure if you saw Richard Sherman comments from yesterday, http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/richard-sherman-deflategate-brady-fined-pats-raises-red/story?id=33199030

 

He talks about a double standard in terms of how players are fined verses owners/mgmt., cites Jim Irsay only getting $500k while Brady would have to pay almost $2 mil in game checks. He raises some great points here. One thing for sure the players are watching this closely as if Brady does have to pay a ridiculous fine for not handing over his personal info or worse serves a suspension even a game, it will set a horrible precedent.

 

Says nothing about Jim Irsay in that article? But if you want to go there, Jim was fined $500k and suspended 6 games. But if that was a player, it would be unfair and they would appeal to 2 game suspension, etc.

[Nadine]

true.  maybe it should just be removed.. ???

visible reminder to everyone.  This is not a whatever link you can find about deflategate thread

[F.T. Walton]

Look, as Colts fans, we should be looking at this clear-eyed, rather than as butt-hurt fans who want the league to punish our rivals. I read the testimony, and would not want Andrew Luck to be penalized like this for something that has not been proven.  Some of the posts here indicate no recognition that a Commissioner who suspends Tom Brady on little or no evidence could also suspend Andrew Luck or TY Hilton on similar grounds.

 

Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller,

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

The NFL players can relate to this probably better than NFL fans.  If they can do a 4 game suspension to a Super Bowl MVP on shoddy evidence, the emperor of the NFL can do it to anybody with shoddy or no evidence.

 

As for anyone who wants to compare this to steroids, I ask this.  Is anyone ever convicted of steroid use without proof of the juice in his bloodstream, waste stream etc?  Maybe they could subpoena every player's phones and start combing for evidence? "Hey, this exchange looks suspicious, let's suspend this guy for 4 games because they were generally aware that this talk may make Tsar Goodell suspicious!

[Yehoodi]

I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But beholding to past "sins" as you state, the Commissioner drew a line in the sand years before with the Pats. They walked over it. Goodell called them on it. They cried "foul". Received their punishment. Now, we're in court about it. Ridiculous. That's just the way things have happened. The Pats screwed up, again. Paid for it this time. Accept it for what it is and move on. The organization did. Brady did not. Sad.

 

Why should Brady move on?  Should not Brady be entitled to be punished fairly for his actions, if any?  And if not, why should he not be entitled to seek redress?

 

And btw, as a side note to your "line drawn in the sand" in 2007, there have been 4 Pats players since Spygate (Harrsion - 2007, Spikes 2010, and Bolden and Cunningham 2012) that have been punished for PEDs and each were given the standard 4 game suspension and no where was they any additional punishment imposed because of Spygate.   So bottom line lets not start with Brady okay.

 

As for you opinion on ones right to appeal, I am not aware of any principle in the country or in the CBA/bylaws/contracts of the NFL that prohibit ones right to an appeal if he has a prior conviction.  Sorry but that does not exist.

 

I know how some might feel about the Pats and what happened in 2007, but that does not allow one to impose additional penalties or ford any future rights for one to receive a fair adjudication on the merits of an alleged action.

 

Bottom line, you and I both know if the NFL after the Wells Report came out in May and handed out a 500K fine and a 3rd draft pick to the Pats for actions of its two sideline employees and fined Brady 200K for not handing over his phone, this issue would of die by May 15th or earlier.

 

But no the NFL felt the need to go nuclear and hand out a penalty that has never been handed to a player and you want him to sit back and just take it.  I am please.  Sorry ColtSense, but an independent nonbias person on the matter should not expect a player to just sit and take punishment when the same has never been handed down before to a player.

[Nadine]

feeling like locking this topic. it's just becoming standard deflategate stuff

[Cynjin]

feeling like locking this topic. it's just becoming standard deflategate stuff

Sounds good to me.

[Yehoodi]

But, there is a need to hold a record of said offender for the public and courts, in terms of possible future violations and punishment.

i.e. Patriots organization

 

There is a record.  They were found to be guilty of violating the rule against the taping of defensive signals.  That is all you need to know.  Anything else on those tapes, say a short film of the cheerleaders, is not relevant.  And as we know from the Ray Rice case the NFL cannot go back and retroactivity make something criminal that as not criminal when it happened.  So any future changes in the rules cannot apply to those tapes.

 

I could see some folks getting upset had the NFL claimed it did not come to a conclusion as to a finding of guilt then destroyed the tapes, but still even then it is up to the NFL and not the public to hand out punishment.  Indeed, I do not know of any time in which the NFL allowed the fans to hand out discipline so why start with the Pats.

[Yehoodi]

feeling like locking this topic. it's just becoming standard deflategate stuff

 

Why lock the thread, are we not talking about what a fair discipline is for Brady, what the judge has as authority to act, what are the four corners of the law and power the judge has to adjudicate in the matter, whether prior acts should be considered in a fair penalty for Brady, is the settlement or judgment going to set a bad or good precedent for future players and what the NFL can do, what powers does the NFL have in the instant case, will they lose power,  should Brady agree to something that has never been handed down before thereby possibly have a tacid agreement by the players that future players can be suspended for non cooperation, is what is happening to Brady and by extension unfair to the players when perhaps non players may not see the same justice.  

 

For me all of the above comes into play when we are dealing with a settlement and what is fair.  Indeed, settlements are by their very nature related to the strength of your case, likelihood of success in court, and in this particular case may effect future actions between the NFL and players, so really all of the above is in play in my book.  my two cents.

 

EDIT:  I will however refrain from talking about Spygate moving forward.

[Nadine]

Why lock the thread, are we not talking about what a fair discipline is for Brady, what the judge has as authority to act, what are the four corners of the law and power the judge has to adjudicate in the matter, whether prior acts should be considered in a fair penalty for Brady, is the settlement or judgment going to set a bad or good precedent for future players and what the NFL can do, what powers does the NFL have in the instant case, will they lose power,  should Brady agree to something that has never been handed down before thereby possibly have a tacid agreement by the players that future players can be suspended for non cooperation, is what is happening to Brady and by extension unfair to the players when perhaps non players may not see the same justice.  

 

For me all of the above comes into play when we are dealing with a settlement and what is fair.  Indeed, settlements are by their very nature related to the strength of your case, likelihood of success in court, and in this particular case may effect future actions between the NFL and players, so really all of the above is in play in my book.  my two cents.

 

EDIT:  I will however refrain from talking about Spygate moving forward.

I understand

But, we've had this discussion all off season and this thread was a way to allow some comment on it without getting into all of it

People here pretty tired of this

[dynasty13]

I understand

But, we've had this discussion all off season and this thread was a way to allow some comment on it without getting into all of it

People here pretty tired of this

 

Whoever's tired of it can opt to not contribute. I understand that some can't quite seem to be able to stay away...but that is on them and nobody has to click on anything that they are tired of hearing about.

 

This thread hasn't degenerated yet and there's been some good dialogue. 

[Gramz]

feeling like locking this topic. it's just becoming standard deflategate stuff

It is what it is. And its always going to be this way.

You either allow deflategate talk, or you don't.

It's a Hot Topic, with strong opinions on both sides. I'm as guilty as anyone for not being able to stay away from the subject, God help me.

[ColtRider]

I see this going down the path as other threads that have been locked on this subject.

So, I shall resign to the act of patience. See you after the ruling or breaking relevant news requiring another thread.

[Yehoodi]

I understand

But, we've had this discussion all off season and this thread was a way to allow some comment on it without getting into all of it

People here pretty tired of this

 

Nadine thank you for your response, kindness, and understanding.  As D13 mentioned for the most part folks have stayed on coarse and I will admit I may have strayed a tad, but most folks are heeding the OP warning and wishes on this thread.  And as Granz mentioned it is a tough subject to bottle into a few pages of short posts, the settlement talks and/or court ruling and any long term effects and what is just result for either of the two is pretty broad. 

 

We all understand and deeply appreciate the time mods have to go through to read threads and edit, and mods, unlike other folks, can not just ignore the threads as they have to read them for editing and moding.

 

And lastly, on a personal note, perhaps other pats fans feel the same way, it has been a long very long seven months since that fateful day in the January.  For nearly all of those seven months we pats fans have been on the wrong end of the stick having to hear it from others as they were in line with the NFL and its rulings, now we finally have a 3rd party who is making points that we feel should have been made a few months ago.   And since we are only like 8 days removed from said comments, for us its seems more like finally we see a voice with authority making points that we have been making; and as such, it does not seem that old and in a way we are just beginning to see things that are in line with our thinking.

 

Thanks again for you time Nadine.

[amfootball]

This is not about the settlement

I beg to differ. Sherman's comments here as a player who is PA representative for his team are very much in play here. When we talk of settlement and he speaks of a double standard between mgmt. and players that has direct bearing on this case as if Brady does end up taking a suspension for non-coop than that sets a new precedent for all players and a very dangerous one at that.

[Gramz]

Nadine thank you for your response, kindness, and understanding. As D13 mentioned for the most part folks have stayed on coarse and I will admit I may have strayed a tad, but most folks are heeding the OP warning and wishes on this thread. And as Granz mentioned it is a tough subject to bottle into a few pages of short posts, the settlement talks and/or court ruling and any long term effects and what is just result for either of the two is pretty broad.

We all understand and deeply appreciate the time mods have to go through to read threads and edit, and mods, unlike other folks, can not just ignore the threads as they have to read them for editing and moding.

And lastly, on a personal note, perhaps other pats fans feel the same way, it has been a long very long seven months since that fateful day in the January. For nearly all of those seven months we pats fans have been on the wrong end of the stick having to hear it from others as they were in line with the NFL and its rulings, now we finally have a 3rd party who is making points that we feel should have been made a few months ago. And since we are only like 8 days removed from said comments, for us its seems more like finally we see a voice with authority making points that we have been making; and as such, it does not seem that old and in a way we are just beginning to see things that are in line with our thinking.

Thanks again for you time Nadine.

I can't speak for everyone, only myself and I can see where you're coming from.

However, at the end of the day, this is still a Colts forum and you can't expect Colts fans to share your opinion or celebrate the things you want to celebrate here.

[Susie Q]

I can't speak for everyone, only myself and I can see where you're coming from.

However, at the end of the day, this is still a Colts forum and you can't expect Colts fans to share your opinion or celebrate the things you want to celebrate here.

^^^  Agree 100%

[dynasty13]

I can't speak for everyone, only myself and I can see where you're coming from.

However, at the end of the day, this is still a Colts forum and you can't expect Colts fans to share your opinion or celebrate the things you want to celebrate here.

 

And nobody is asking you to...

 

But it may be time to acknowledge that some of the things that Patriots fans were talking about may have some legitimacy since all of a sudden it isn't just us biased New Englanders who don't understand logic saying it. 

 

It's been a trying few months for everyone here...but the end is near!

[Gramz]

I beg to differ. Sherman's comments here as a player who is PA representative for his team are very much in play here. When we talk of settlement and he speaks of a double standard between mgmt. and players that has direct bearing on this case as if Brady does end up taking a suspension for non-coop than that sets a new precedent for all players and a very dangerous one at that.

Or.......... it sets a precedent to cooperate. How about that novel idea.

[jvan1973]

I beg to differ. Sherman's comments here as a player who is PA representative for his team are very much in play here. When we talk of settlement and he speaks of a double standard between mgmt. and players that has direct bearing on this case as if Brady does end up taking a suspension for non-coop than that sets a new precedent for all players and a very dangerous one at that.

First off, the NFLPA gave Goodell his power.

Second, Irsay was suspended 6 games

[amfootball]

First off, the NFLPA gave Goodell his power.

Second, Irsay was suspended 6 games

Point one has no bearing as the CBA outlines how non-coop is punishable and league precedent has been a fine.

 

Second, does Irsay get paid by the game like Brady?

[jvan1973]

Point one has no bearing as the CBA outlines how non-coop is punishable and league precedent has been a fine.

Second, does Irsay get paid by the game like Brady?

The first is the NFLPAs interpretation.

The second is irrelevant

[amfootball]

The first is the NFLPAs interpretation.

The second is irrelevant

No it is not.

 

Second, it is not irrelevant as Sherman's point was about the discrepancies in fines between mgmt. and players. If Brady sits 4 games that is almost 2 mil in wages gone. Irsay got $500k. 

[jvan1973]

No it is not.

Second, it is not irrelevant as Sherman's point was about the discrepancies in fines between mgmt. and players. If Brady sits 4 games that is almost 2 mil in wages gone. Irsay got $500k.

Actually that is the NFLPAs interpretation. The NFL and their lawyers disagree

[amfootball]

Actually that is the NFLPAs interpretation. The NFL and their lawyers disagree

No the NFL believes they can re-write the CBA and supersede precedent while hiding behind article 46 yet they are 0-4 in fed cases so far with Berman ripping holes into their "interpretations" left and right...

[Gramz]

At the end of the day, this is about technicalities, and not so much about following the rules that started this whole debacle.

[Gramz]

And nobody is asking you to...

But it may be time to acknowledge that some of the things that Patriots fans were talking about may have some legitimacy since all of a sudden it isn't just us biased New Englanders who don't understand logic saying it.

It's been a trying few months for everyone here...but the end is near!

Key words here: may have.

It's been a trying several months for everyone here. That part I agree with.

Several of us may not have given nearly as much thought to it, had it not been for a certain poster spewing so much crap and trying to dominate and take over our forum. Excuse us for trying to defend our domain.

[jvan1973]

No the NFL believes they can re-write the CBA and supersede precedent while hiding behind article 46 yet they are 0-4 in fed cases so far with Berman ripping holes into their "interpretations" left and right...

He hasn't ripped hole in anything. If it were that cut and dry he would have forced a ruling by now

[pgt_rob]

So Berman isn't going to talk to the most important figures in this whole deal; AKA the ball boys? The court case is just to see whether the NFL is being fair with their punishment? Hmm... doesn't seem like a fair "trial" for the NFL in my opinion. Even if Berman's resolution sides with Tom Brady, that doesn't mean he didn't cheat. Just that a punishment for ball deflation was too extreme. Lame.

[dw49]

No it is not.

 

Second, it is not irrelevant as Sherman's point was about the discrepancies in fines between mgmt. and players. If Brady sits 4 games that is almost 2 mil in wages gone. Irsay got $500k. 

 

 

Lord .. what apples and oranges that is. One is a fine , the other is a suspension. If person A is fined a million bucks for an offense and person B is suspended from his job , it's 2 entirely different things. Furthermore Sherman is complaining that Kraft got off easy as much as he is about Brady missing pay checks. But his argument is ridiculous as suspensions have to be based on the nature of the offense. Otherwise if Tom Brady and Matt Hasselbeck did the exact same things , according to you and Sherman , Hasselbeck would get 4 times the punishment Brady would. 

[Nadine]

I beg to differ. Sherman's comments here as a player who is PA representative for his team are very much in play here. When we talk of settlement and he speaks of a double standard between mgmt. and players that has direct bearing on this case as if Brady does end up taking a suspension for non-coop than that sets a new precedent for all players and a very dangerous one at that.

I beg to differ

 

The thread is about how you see this coming out not more opinions on whats fair and what's not fair.

 

You scour the web for these and you also brought our owner in as you said it was in the article.......and it was not

 

That in itself invited a whole lot of response

[grm]

If there has to be middle ground, that is a settlement, I'd say 2 games, and thus implied acknowledgement of guilt. Since Brady is all in here, he won't accept this. He, and some fans, want his 'legacy'. This whole situation is now very nuanced. I think he'll eventually get no games, but he should get 4. He's arguably the best QB ever but imo, lying. I just cannot get by all the other stuff, and his appeal testimony read like a dishonest man speaking.

But he's too deep now to do anything but fight and appeal, over and over.

This won't end with Berman and his decision. I wish it was over and the only way for the pats to salvage some respect now, would be to win a SB before TB or BB retire. Here's hoping.

[Cynjin]

No it is not.

 

Second, it is not irrelevant as Sherman's point was about the discrepancies in fines between mgmt. and players. If Brady sits 4 games that is almost 2 mil in wages gone. Irsay got $500k.

I read the article, where is Irsay mentioned? Sherman talks about the difference between what Brady would be fined vs what Kraft was fined. Don't tell me you're confusing Kraft with Irsay.

To Sherman's point, I believe Sherman to be very intelligent, but if he thinks owners should be or will be treated the same as the employees, he is living in la la land.

[amfootball]

So Berman isn't going to talk to the most important figures in this whole deal; AKA the ball boys? The court case is just to see whether the NFL is being fair with their punishment? Hmm... doesn't seem like a fair "trial" for the NFL in my opinion. Even if Berman's resolution sides with Tom Brady, that doesn't mean he didn't cheat. Just that a punishment for ball deflation was too extreme. Lame.

There were interviewed by Wells but their testimony was never included in his report. The NFL also did not ask they testify at the appeal. I assume their testimony is not something that would help the NFL or shed anything further light on the case or else Berman would call them.