No settlement between Brady and NFL

[bostonmajet]

Yes.  If the parties express an intention to appeal he could stay his own ruling to allow the Circuit Court to Rule.

Sounds like a winner; basically he doesn't have to commit to anything...

[JohnnyLV]

Sorry boys Brady is playing week 1.  Even if the idiot judge doesn't overturn it he can appeal and get an injunction.

Injunctions are not guaranteed. If the next judge agrees with the first judges ruling and does not feel it is likely that Brady will prevail he will deny the injunction

[JohnnyLV]

The judge already tipped his hand by openly talking about how much of an advantage could it be if they put up 28 points or whatever in 2nd half.

I still don't get that this is being handled by a judge.  Nice precedent, now every single suspension can be sent to a judge, right?

I also don't understand that if this is being adjudicated by a judge that the NFL has not or could not ask the ball guys to testify and have brady and the boys put under oath.

 

 

Beer, the facts of the case are actually irrelevant. The judge is not ruling on that. All he is judging is whether the NFL correctly followed the CBA. Nothing else.

[Jet Nut]

This Judge can't enter a compromise decision.  Either he upholds it or vacates it.  Only a settlement could be for one, two or three games.

I didn't say the judge wanted a compromise decision.  I said he would uphold or vacate it. 

[greenwave81]

Injunctions are not guaranteed. If the next judge agrees with the first judges ruling and does not feel it is likely that Brady will prevail he will deny the injunction

Which is interesting, as then it becomes a potential issue of which 4 games the Pats are willing to be without Brady, as that may take a few weeks to get another judge appointed etc. to possibly uphold the suspension.

Just find the whole thread entertaining...I should have been a lawyer not a doctor lol. It's hard for some people to separate out the fact that this hearing was about whether the NFL followed to parameters of the CBA, and not whether the whole thing was fair or just...and anyone that thinks the NFL f*cked up the 'investigation' needs to remember that this wasn't a criminal investigation...no subpoena power etc. Brady pitched his cellphone and refused to turn over documents. The judge wanted a settlement, as most labor judges do, as that makes this whole thing go away with both sides dragging their tails a bit.

And while I'm not a lawyer, I think the judge was in this case giving Brady a chance to strike a better deal with a settlement and having this thing disappear without the need to rule...but when he does rule at this point he upholds the NFLs position.

We'll see I guess...

[BaumerJet]

 

 

Brady is not going to win this case.  In the unlikely event that Berman rules in his favor, the 2nd Circuit will tip him on appeal.  As Senator Trent would say, you can take that to the bank.      

That said, not sure I'm getting the angst.   The drop-off between Brady and Jimmy G is not likely to translate to much difference in the W/L column for just the first 4 games.  The Patriots aren't getting back their future #1 and #4.  And nobody's mind is going to be changed about Brady (for good or for bad) regardless of what Berman's decision says.   

 

You keep saying this but what makes you think he could get an injunction?  Injunctions are generally granted to preserve the status quo, not to overturn it.  He would have to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.   Do you really think that is likely to happen if he has lost three times in a row?

 

That and the fact that Judge Berman is also an arbitration judge.  it has been his legal background of the last 11 years as a 2nd district court judg.e He has been one to try to force parties to work out their differences through arbitration. 

If he does decide either way, any appeal would fall to the hands of three arbitrating judges, who would rule on the appeal based on the route the case was resolved. Not on any of the smoking guns.

Yes, just like in the A-Rob case Brady could play through the most of 2015 season under a legal stay.

However, should the District Court of Appeal agree with the decision, the losing parties would have to face a true final decision.

its going to be a very interesting winter...

 

[RutgersJetFan]

This thread:

[j4jets]

The judge suggesting that they settle is the judge telling Brady to admit some guilt---something Brady does not want to do.  So for the judge to now say the suspension was bogus would contradict himself.  It is all about whether the judge feels he should be determining athletic league suspensions.  Which he may have to do from now on if he sets this precedent.

Judges always want cases to be settled before they have to decide on it. But I get what you're saying. I don't think there's a football fan that believes Brady want Shady but the judge won't have any issue tossing the case based on not having enough evidence to convict Brady. It's not about the deflated balls now. It's whether it was orchestrated by Brady or not. 

[Bruce Harper]

Judges always want cases to be settled before they have to decide on it. But I get what you're saying. I don't think there's a football fan that believes Brady want Shady but the judge won't have any issue tossing the case based on not having enough evidence to convict Brady. It's not about the deflated balls now. It's whether it was orchestrated by Brady or not. 

I believe Brady pressured those guys to deflate the balls.  All you have to do is read the emails to reasonably conclude that.  But Brady was not "convicted" of anything.  More probable than not is not a very high standard of proof.

[Dcat]

I believe Brady pressured those guys to deflate the balls.  All you have to do is read the emails to reasonably conclude that.  But Brady was not "convicted" of anything.  More probable than not is not a very high standard of proof.

When one of them was mad at Brady, he texted  "F-ck Tom.  Next time I'm going to give him a watermelon".  That's all you need folks.  In that statement, it is clear that Brady's expectation is that he deflate the balls to his liking.  To write "I'm going to give him a watermelon" clearly shows that he was doctoring the balls specifically for Brady.  Now whether or not Brady ordered him to deflate below the permissible PSI, that's another story.  But it is beyond any reasonable doubt (the criminal law burden of proof) that he was doing it for Brady and that Brady knew about it.  This makes Brady a certified liar, claiming he didn't know those guys and knew nothing about it.  I guess Brady defenders don't mind being lied to.  They idolize a despicable cheating liar.  Only in New England.

Frankly, Brady should have been suspended for the whole year based on his arrogance alone.  He is a piece of sh!t.  

p.s.  the term "more probable than not" is the NFL equivalent of "preponderance of the evidence", which is the burden of proof in most civil suits (which this would be).  It is the standard burden of proof agreed to by the players union in the CBA.  The two higher standards in the law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence" are generally used only when one party's liberty is at stake (Beyond Reas. Doubt for criminal cases and "Clear and Convincing evidence" in non criminal cases involving liberty issues, such as committing grandpa to an asylum and the like).  SO anyone complaining about the burden of proof "more likely than not" just doesn't understand the CBA or the law.  

[Beerfish]

Beer, the facts of the case are actually irrelevant. The judge is not ruling on that. All he is judging is whether the NFL correctly followed the CBA. Nothing else.

Then why is he opening up his big flapping trap and musing about the relevance of the deflation?  And why is there a 'settlement' issue then?  This is not clear to me at all.  If he is ruling on the CBA then make a ruling on it, instead he is sending them off to reach a settlement.

[Bruce Harper]

Then why is he opening up his big flapping trap and musing about the relevance of the deflation?  And why is there a 'settlement' issue then?  This is not clear to me at all.  If he is ruling on the CBA then make a ruling on it, instead he is sending them off to reach a settlement.

Judges love mediation and settlements.  It lightens their caseloads, eliminates appeals and brings matters to a final resolution.  When attempting to bring about settlement, Judges will virtually always get into the merits to some extent, in order to try to convince the parties to meet in the middle.  The SOP for a mediation is the Judge (if he is mediating) will put the parties in different rooms and go back and forth, telling both of them that their cases stink so that they will step off of their hard-line positions and meet in the middle somewhere.  In order to do this effectively, the judge will learn enough about each party's case to poke holes in it or point out the weaknesses in it.  This can make the parties feel vulnerable to the possibility of a complete loss and make them more likely to grab something in the mediation or settlement conference rather than risk losing everything.  The problem here is that both parties would rather lose than have a public perception that they gave in. 

My read of this case is that the Judge saw that the NFL was being particularly stubborn so he proceeded to point out everything that they did wrong in order to try to get them to yield.  He could rule in Brady's favor, but I wouldn't read too much into what he said at the settlement hearing.  He could think that Brady got screwed or the investigation was shoddy but still uphold the suspension because the NFL was within its rights under the CBA.  Indeed, I think that is the most likely outcome.

[bostonmajet]

...

My read of this case is that the Judge saw that the NFL was being particularly stubborn so he proceeded to point out everything that they did wrong in order to try to get them to yield.  He could rule in Brady's favor, but I wouldn't read too much into what he said at the settlement hearing.  He could think that Brady got screwed or the investigation was shoddy but still uphold the suspension because the NFL was within its rights under the CBA.  Indeed, I think that is the most likely outcome.

+1

I don't know why people don't get this; well actually I do; I blame the media.

I was watching NFL channel for a bit and they had some lawyer on stating that the case is only about whether Goodell had followed CBA rules, etc. and it had nothing to do with deflated balls or Brady's innocence, and then they asked Dukes and some other ex-player what they thought and they said that Brady will win, the balls didn't effect them beating Indy, blah, blah, blah.

So, after providing real information from an actual Labor lawyer (or maybe some analyst retelling what a labor lawyer said), they give the final word to some ex-player yahoos who don't know what they are talking about.

Public opinion keeps tying the outcome of this ruling to Brady's guilt/innocence and that is why Brady is fighting it, but in reality this hasn't been about Brady since Goodell ruled  and Brady filed the appeal in Federal Court.

[Beerfish]

Judges love mediation and settlements.  It lightens their caseloads, eliminates appeals and brings matters to a final resolution.  When attempting to bring about settlement, Judges will virtually always get into the merits to some extent, in order to try to convince the parties to meet in the middle.  The SOP for a mediation is the Judge (if he is mediating) will put the parties in different rooms and go back and forth, telling both of them that their cases stink so that they will step off of their hard-line positions and meet in the middle somewhere.  In order to do this effectively, the judge will learn enough about each party's case to poke holes in it or point out the weaknesses in it.  This can make the parties feel vulnerable to the possibility of a complete loss and make them more likely to grab something in the mediation or settlement conference rather than risk losing everything.  The problem here is that both parties would rather lose than have a public perception that they gave in. 

My read of this case is that the Judge saw that the NFL was being particularly stubborn so he proceeded to point out everything that they did wrong in order to try to get them to yield.  He could rule in Brady's favor, but I wouldn't read too much into what he said at the settlement hearing.  He could think that Brady got screwed or the investigation was shoddy but still uphold the suspension because the NFL was within its rights under the CBA.  Indeed, I think that is the most likely outcome.

Yes I am aware of what you posted but my comment was directed to the previous comment that the judge is there to simply rule on whether the NFL followed the CBA or not.  This is a yes or no question if that is the case.

As I've pointed out before a 'settlement' is encouraged where both parties have something on the line and the threat of a total loss will bring them together.  Brady has nothing on the line here, not one thing.  The judge is not going to say, hey you were wrong thus i am raising the suspension to 6 games.  The way this is playing out with the talk of settlements only the NFL (and thus all of us) can lose because the suspension will be reduced.

It also sets a great precedent of any and all players taking their case to court so they can reach a 'settlement'.  Sheldon Richardson should be getting his case ready so that his 4 games can go to a judge and the league can settle that one as well.

I see no reason why this suspension, amongst all the many other suspensions handed down by the league has ended up in the courts, with a judge encouraging a settlement.

 

 

[Bruce Harper]

+1

I don't know why people don't get this; well actually I do; I blame the media.

I was watching NFL channel for a bit and they had some lawyer on stating that the case is only about whether Goodell had followed CBA rules, etc. and it had nothing to do with deflated balls or Brady's innocence, and then they asked Dukes and some other ex-player what they thought and they said that Brady will win, the balls didn't effect them beating Indy, blah, blah, blah.

So, after providing real information from an actual Labor lawyer (or maybe some analyst retelling what a labor lawyer said), they give the final word to some ex-player yahoos who don't know what they are talking about.

Public opinion keeps tying the outcome of this ruling to Brady's guilt/innocence and that is why Brady is fighting it, but in reality this hasn't been about Brady since Goodell ruled  and Brady filed the appeal in Federal Court.

I also live in New England and I am amazed at the level of ignorance on sports radio up here from otherwise usually smart guys.  These guys have been worshipping at the Brady altar for just a little bit too long and when you combine this with an ignorance about burdens of proof and deference to arbitration rulings they aren't able to perceive the posture of this matter.  They are convinced that because there is no "smoking gun" and there may have been flaws in the reports that Brady will get no suspension whatsoever.  They even trot out some "lawyers" to support this position.  The merits aren't entirely irrelevant but the real question is whether the NFL acted within its rights under the CBA, which I think it did.

[Bruce Harper]

Yes I am aware of what you posted but my comment was directed to the previous comment that the judge is there to simply rule on whether the NFL followed the CBA or not.  This is a yes or no question if that is the case.

As I've pointed out before a 'settlement' is encouraged where both parties have something on the line and the threat of a total loss will bring them together.  Brady has nothing on the line here, not one thing.  The judge is not going to say, hey you were wrong thus i am raising the suspension to 6 games.  The way this is playing out with the talk of settlements only the NFL (and thus all of us) can lose because the suspension will be reduced.

It also sets a great precedent of any and all players taking their case to court so they can reach a 'settlement'.  Sheldon Richardson should be getting his case ready so that his 4 games can go to a judge and the league can settle that one as well.

I see no reason why this suspension, amongst all the many other suspensions handed down by the league has ended up in the courts, with a judge encouraging a settlement.

 

 

Although courts and Judges are perceived as the arbiters of disputes, it is not widely known how much the courts now push ADR (alternate dispute resolution, which includes mediation).  The federal courts now are so geared toward forcing settlements that it is almost mandatory in all cases.  It is the first thing that comes up in the first conference in all cases.   They immediately try to force you into mediation (settlement discussions).  

If you just want your case to proceed to a disposition on the merits (and no mediation) you have to do a good job of explaining why.  It is a risky strategy because a refusal to participate in settlement conferences can be seen by the Judge as bull-headed.  Judges are very interested in arriving at a conclusion as to who is resonable and who is not.  And for these reasons a lot of parties agree to participate in settlement conferences (even when they know the case has no chance of settling) just so the Judge won't get pissed off at them and hold it against them when he rules on the merits of the dispute.

[bostonmajet]

I also live in New England and I am amazed at the level of ignorance on sports radio up here from otherwise usually smart guys.  These guys have been worshipping at the Brady altar for just a little bit too long and when you combine this with an ignorance about burdens of proof and deference to arbitration rulings they aren't able to perceive the posture of this matter.  They are convinced that because there is no "smoking gun" and there may have been flaws in the reports that Brady will get no suspension whatsoever.  They even trot out some "lawyers" to support this position.  The merits aren't entirely irrelevant but the real question is whether the NFL acted within its rights under the CBA, which I think it did.

Some of the talk radio is quite funny; Brady wouldn't do it; they even talk about 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which applies to criminal activities) but some of the programs are reasonably objective (all things considered).

My favorite argument is that the NFL should give in because this has been going on too long and it didn't take this long for any of the other cases and that everyone else gets a break when they appeal.  When someone points out that unlike the other recent situations (Atlanta, Minnesota, etc) the Pats didn't admit doing anything wrong, they stonewalled the investigation, refused to cooperate and Brady filed the appeal, and then appealed again and refused to give and that is why it is taking so long - well that person get scrucified.

In fairness, however, the investigation and the wells report was a joke; not complete and certainly not impartial.  The only ones who messed this up worse than the Pats and Brady is the NFL.  Goodell made a mess of this.

[Beerfish]

Although courts and Judges are perceived as the arbiters of disputes, it is not widely known how much the courts now push ADR (alternate dispute resolution, which includes mediation).  The federal courts now are so geared toward forcing settlements that it is almost mandatory in all cases.  It is the first thing that comes up in the first conference in all cases.   They immediately try to force you into mediation (settlement discussions).  

If you just want your case to proceed to a disposition on the merits (and no mediation) you have to do a good job of explaining why.  It is a risky strategy because a refusal to participate in settlement conferences can be seen by the Judge as bull-headed.  Judges are very interested in arriving at a conclusion as to who is resonable and who is not.  And for these reasons a lot of parties agree to participate in settlement conferences (even when they know the case has no chance of settling) just so the Judge won't get pissed off at them and hold it against them when he rules on the merits of the dispute.

None of this has changed a thing I have said. 

If they are pushing a 'settlement' then the court is not deciding on whether the CBA was followed, it either was or was not.

This should not be a dispute that has anything like a settlement attached to it because a settlement indicates both sides have something to offer or lose.  What does Tom Brady have to lose in this situation?  Nothing.

[Bruce Harper]

None of this has changed a thing I have said. 

If they are pushing a 'settlement' then the court is not deciding on whether the CBA was followed, it either was or was not.

This should not be a dispute that has anything like a settlement attached to it because a settlement indicates both sides have something to offer or lose.  What does Tom Brady have to lose in this situation?  Nothing.

Not arguing with you.  Just observing that the courts push settlement, even while they are drafting a ruling.  When Berman rules and the losing side appeals, the Appeals court also will try to force them into mediation.  It is sort of a dual track.  By pushing them into settlement talks it does not mean that he will not rule for one party or the other.  He would just prefer if they arrived at something they could both live with so he can do less work and there will be no appeal. 

[Klecko73isGod]

This thread:

Obviously yooooooouuuu didn't go to law school......

[drdetroit]

This wanting Brady to get suspended stuff reeks of 'well we can't beat him so suspend him.'

 

I hate the patriots but I want to beat them at 100%.  Brady suspended for a quarter of the season isn't the same as 2010.

[ghost_in_pads02]

I also live in New England and I am amazed at the level of ignorance on sports radio up here from otherwise usually smart guys.  These guys have been worshipping at the Brady altar for just a little bit too long 

ahh there are two radio stations in boston and not all the personalities on both radio stations side with brady at all.

 

[AFCEastFan]

This wanting Brady to get suspended stuff reeks of 'well we can't beat him so suspend him.'

 

I hate the patriots but I want to beat them at 100%.  Brady suspended for a quarter of the season isn't the same as 2010.

Darryl Roberts (the only real hope we had to avoid extended reps from Bradley Fletcher and Logan Ryan) is reportedly done for the year, so that can't happen regardless of what happens to Brady.  

[Jet Fan RI]

Injunctions are not guaranteed. If the next judge agrees with the first judges ruling and does not feel it is likely that Brady will prevail he will deny the injunction

If there is no injunction and the appeals process takes longer than 4 weeks, there really won't be much of substance for the appeal to decide. I guess if they rule in Brady's favor after he has already served the suspension he'll get his lost pay.

[Beerfish]

This wanting Brady to get suspended stuff reeks of 'well we can't beat him so suspend him.'

 

I hate the patriots but I want to beat them at 100%.  Brady suspended for a quarter of the season isn't the same as 2010.

I could give a crap about the actual suspension, this is about justice and paying the price for skulduggery both in terms of not playing and being held up for shame by the sporting world.  The more the suspension gets nerfed the more ammo it gives to the 'nothing was ever proven' or 'this is a minor misdemeanor' crowd.

 

This is actual tampering with in game equipment, knowingly done against well established rules.  The fact this turd and his herd are actually fighting a slap on the wrist 4 game suspension is outrageous.

[bostonmajet]

ahh there are two radio stations in boston and not all the personalities on both radio stations side with brady at all.

 

Yes, I find that the level of 'objectiveness' changes within programs on the same station.  Of course Boston's mayor wears the Free Brady T-shirt...

[Klecko73isGod]

I could give a crap about the actual suspension, this is about justice and paying the price for skulduggery both in terms of not playing and being held up for shame by the sporting world.  The more the suspension gets nerfed the more ammo it gives to the 'nothing was ever proven' or 'this is a minor misdemeanor' crowd.

 

This is actual tampering with in game equipment, knowingly done against well established rules.  The fact this turd and his herd are actually fighting a slap on the wrist 4 game suspension is outrageous.

Repped for using the word "skulduggery."

[Bruce Harper]

This wanting Brady to get suspended stuff reeks of 'well we can't beat him so suspend him.'

 

I hate the patriots but I want to beat them at 100%.  Brady suspended for a quarter of the season isn't the same as 2010.

Can't say I agree.  I will take any competitive advantage (within the rules) that I can.

[JohnnyLV]

None of this has changed a thing I have said. 

If they are pushing a 'settlement' then the court is not deciding on whether the CBA was followed, it either was or was not.

This should not be a dispute that has anything like a settlement attached to it because a settlement indicates both sides have something to offer or lose.  What does Tom Brady have to lose in this situation?  Nothing.

Beer

A settlement is best for all parties and saves the taxpayers millions of dollars in judicial proceedings, so the judges attack both sides making them think they will rule against them so they will get off their high horse and settle.

In this case though, the case is STRICTLY about whether or not the NFL followed the rules of the CBA, so yes the decision is essentially a yes/no decision and has nothing at all to do with the NFL's investigation or whether Brady is guilty or not.

The judge knows in this case that an appeal is likely so he could take an in between route and defer his ruling until after the appeal which sort of streamlines the process somewhat. Brady though would likely be granted an injunction in that case though,

But no one in the media seems to get that it is not about Brady's guilt at all.

Brady would need to file a defamation suit to go down that road, but since he is guilty he would never do it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Beerfish]

Beer

A settlement is best for all parties and saves the taxpayers millions of dollars in judicial proceedings, so the judges attack both sides making them think they will rule against them so they will get off their high horse and settle.

SETTLE WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this case though, the case is STRICTLY about whether or not the NFL followed the rules of the CBA, so yes the decision is essentially a yes/no decision and has nothing at all to do with the NFL's investigation or whether Brady is guilty or not.

The judge knows in this case that an appeal is likely so he could take an in between route and defer his ruling until after the appeal which sort of streamlines the process somewhat. Brady though would likely be granted an injunction in that case though,

But no one in the media seems to get that it is not about Brady's guilt at all.

Brady would need to file a defamation suit to go down that road, but since he is guilty he would never do it.

 

 

 

 

 

wtf are they going to settle?  Please, tell me.  A ruling was made because the NFL thought a rule was broken, a punishment was handed out. 

So the only possible thing that 'settle' means in this case is a reduction of the suspension so that the issue goes away.  And since this is the case one side of the 'settle' issue that being Brady has zero to lose and everything to gain.  The NFL has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

If I was a lawyer for any player from here on out that gets suspended I would insist on the same court proceedings afforded to Brady and get the league to settle.

[Bruce Harper]

Beer

A settlement is best for all parties and saves the taxpayers millions of dollars in judicial proceedings, so the judges attack both sides making them think they will rule against them so they will get off their high horse and settle.

In this case though, the case is STRICTLY about whether or not the NFL followed the rules of the CBA, so yes the decision is essentially a yes/no decision and has nothing at all to do with the NFL's investigation or whether Brady is guilty or not.

The judge knows in this case that an appeal is likely so he could take an in between route and defer his ruling until after the appeal which sort of streamlines the process somewhat. Brady though would likely be granted an injunction in that case though,

But no one in the media seems to get that it is not about Brady's guilt at all.

Brady would need to file a defamation suit to go down that road, but since he is guilty he would never do it.

 

 

 

 

 

The Pats and Brady could have cleared up the issue of his "innocence" by producing the ball boys to be questioned by the NFL after the texts were found.  They refused to do so.  Gee, I wonder why?  And they both could have testified on his behalf at the appeal hearing as well, as Goodell let them put anything they wanted to into evidence.

There is a doctrine in the law called the "empty chair" doctrine.  What it means is that if you have a witness with knowledge within your control and you don't produce him to testify, the fact-finder can infer that his testimony would not have been helpful to you.  There is zero chance of a defamation suit as those two guys would have to testify under oath to the specific instructions given to them by Brady and/or Belichick. Never gonna happen.  Brady is trying to save face by this appeal because  (1) he can continue to claim he is innocent and that he got railroaded; and (2) there is zero chance that the truth of his active participation in the cheating will come out (beyond what we already know).

[JohnnyLV]

wtf are they going to settle?  Please, tell me.  A ruling was made because the NFL thought a rule was broken, a punishment was handed out. 

So the only possible thing that 'settle' means in this case is a reduction of the suspension so that the issue goes away.  And since this is the case one side of the 'settle' issue that being Brady has zero to lose and everything to gain.  The NFL has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

If I was a lawyer for any player from here on out that gets suspended I would insist on the same court proceedings afforded to Brady and get the league to settle.

Yes they would settle on a reduced suspension or fine. For the reason you stated neither side will settle.

[AFCEastFan]

The Pats and Brady could have cleared up the issue of his "innocence" by producing the ball boys to be questioned by the NFL after the texts were found.  They refused to do so.  Gee, I wonder why?  And they both could have testified on his behalf at the appeal hearing as well, as Goodell let them put anything they wanted to into evidence.

There is a doctrine in the law called the "empty chair" doctrine.  What it means is that if you have a witness with knowledge within your control and you don't produce him to testify, the fact-finder can infer that his testimony would not have been helpful to you.  There is zero chance of a defamation suit as those two guys would have to testify under oath to the specific instructions given to them by Brady and/or Belichick. Never gonna happen.  Brady is trying to save face by this appeal because  (1) he can continue to claim he is innocent and that he got railroaded; and (2) there is zero chance that the truth of his active participation in the cheating will come out (beyond what we already know).

I thought Wells had the texts all along, but couldn't be bothered to review them before interviewing McNally for the first time and then wanted a second bite at the apple after he finally got around to reviewing all the texts?  If that is really what happened, then part of me doesn't blame the Patriots for declining to produce McNally again on principle.  That said, they walked into an easy non-cooperation violation by failing to do so and richly deserve an adverse inference for failing to produce him again to Wells and at the appeal hearing.   

 

[bostonmajet]

wtf are they going to settle?  Please, tell me.  A ruling was made because the NFL thought a rule was broken, a punishment was handed out. 

So the only possible thing that 'settle' means in this case is a reduction of the suspension so that the issue goes away.  And since this is the case one side of the 'settle' issue that being Brady has zero to lose and everything to gain.  The NFL has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

If I was a lawyer for any player from here on out that gets suspended I would insist on the same court proceedings afforded to Brady and get the league to settle.

In a settlement, both parties gain that the are guaranteed to not have the worst case scenario: for the NFL it is no suspension and everyone is going to always appeal, for Brady it is a 4 game suspension.

What does Brady have to gain by settling?  If they agree to a 2 game suspension, he gains back 2 games, the process is no longer over his head, he and the team know exactly what is going to happen and when it is going to happen so that they can plan accordingly.  So, if he doesn't settle and looses, he looses 2 extra games, has this hanging over him and distracting him for several more months, and possibly has to serve the suspension during the end of the season or even the post-season.

Brady may decide that he would rather not settle and loose and claim that he never settled or agreed to wrong doing and the possibility of pushing the suspension out until next year (and maybe retire); so I am not suggesting the Brady should settle, but to suggest that Brady has nothing to loose by not settling is a bit silly in my mind.

[Beerfish]

In a settlement, both parties gain that the are guaranteed to not have the worst case scenario: for the NFL it is no suspension and everyone is going to always appeal, for Brady it is a 4 game suspension.

What does Brady have to gain by settling?  If they agree to a 2 game suspension, he gains back 2 games, the process is no longer over his head, he and the team know exactly what is going to happen and when it is going to happen so that they can plan accordingly.  So, if he doesn't settle and looses, he looses 2 extra games, has this hanging over him and distracting him for several more months, and possibly has to serve the suspension during the end of the season or even the post-season.

Brady may decide that he would rather not settle and loose and claim that he never settled or agreed to wrong doing and the possibility of pushing the suspension out until next year (and maybe retire); so I am not suggesting the Brady should settle, but to suggest that Brady has nothing to loose by not settling is a bit silly in my mind.

The decision was already a 4 game suspension going into the process Brady was getting 4 games, Brady has no chance of getting anything more.  Thus settlement simply means a reduction for Brady.  If Brady loses 100% on this issue he still gets the 4 games he was assessed.  There is no settlement when one side has nothing to lose at all and the other has it all to lose.

People are trying to twist this into some kind of routine negotiation.  That is not how it has ever worked.  He was handed a punishment, he appealed to the league And was rejected.  How this issue has become some court negotiated deal when all other suspension have never been so is beyond me.