Have to think this is probably Jerry Jones and Dan Rooney both who have an interest in keeping the suspension as is.dcdrew10 said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I'm genuinely curious about how these settlement discussions work. I'm guessing that to maintain the pretense that Goodell is disinterested, someone else from the league is doing the talking directly. Vincent? Pash?
In any event, I wouldn't take much from the fact that there has been some communication about a potential settlement. It could be nothing more one party making an extremely one-sided offer.
In any event, I wouldn't take much from the fact that there has been some communication about a potential settlement. It could be nothing more one party making an extremely one-sided offer.
Based solely on week 1 and week 5 - or something more?jsinger121 said:
In the likely scenario that an injunction is put in place, the head-to-head benefit for Pittsburgh and (quite possibly) Dallas disappears. Sure, there are potential playoff implications for Rooney, but without the suspension in week 5, does Jerruh care? What am I missing?
They are both influential owners and they are playing the Patriots in those weeks. It makes sense for them to be in Roger's ear.Section15Box113 said:
I continue to think that Goodell (through whomever) is offering to reduce the sentence down to one or two games in return for a promise not to challenge.MarcSullivaFan said:
The other moving part is likely related to how the settlement is messaged to the public when announced. My guess is that the NFL and Tom/NFLPA want almost exactly the opposite messaging, making it even harder. Tom probably wants exoneration and Goodell wants some form of admission.
Given the amount of people who would likely be involved or have knowledge of a possible settlement, I tend to believe that those discussions have not progressed very far given the lack of leaks about a deal being within reach. It's theoretically possible that the circle of those involved is quite small but again, I think word would seep out if something was getting close.
This delay is maddening but not surprising. Even if they are making some efforts to settle this, there is very likely a team of lawyers working on what they hope will be the most bullet proof decision upholding the four games. I'm no labor lawyer but from all I have read, that will be a very tall task, but that fact wont prevent the NFL from trying mightily.
I wonder which side leaked this...hmmmm...
The NFL leaked this because NFL. RG and co. don't mind because it has the appearance of an admission of some level of guilt. This despite the very real possibility that this "settlement discussion" has been exactly what was predicted here awhile ago.
RG: "If you promise to not sue I'll drop it to 2 games."
Brady/Kessler: "Rrrrrrriiiiiigght...um, no?"
The NFL leaked this because NFL. RG and co. don't mind because it has the appearance of an admission of some level of guilt. This despite the very real possibility that this "settlement discussion" has been exactly what was predicted here awhile ago.
RG: "If you promise to not sue I'll drop it to 2 games."
Brady/Kessler: "Rrrrrrriiiiiigght...um, no?"
That important owners have any influence in the process shows just how fucked up the whole thing is, particularly after Kraft backed off. Jones was probably working the back channels to get Hardy reduced as much as possible, and now wants Goodell to uphold the 4 games for Brady.
I thought it was unpossible for communications between the parties about a deal to even happen. Like, explicitly unlegal and strongly banned.
Was the issue that you could have 'above the table' discussions (such that the Brady team could come out and say 'oh they offered us this and we declined') as compared to under the table, where everything could be denied, or something?
Was the issue that you could have 'above the table' discussions (such that the Brady team could come out and say 'oh they offered us this and we declined') as compared to under the table, where everything could be denied, or something?
koufax32 said:
Bingo. When the public hears "the sides are discussing a settlement" they take it as "Brady must be at least somewhat guilty if he is willing to settle". So the NFL clearly leaked this. And there is slightly greater than 0.0% chance they settle. Like .00001%.
There's nothing in the CBA that gives the owners the right to opine on a player's punishment or his appeal. If the facts of the case during the appeal do not support a suspension, then what the other owners think is supposed to be irrelevant. So the process is now officially a sham.
In isolation, if Goodell was to reduce or eliminate Brady's appeal, the NFL owners would make just as much money as they would if the suspension stands. The networks and sponsors aren't going to reduce their outlays because of this one decision; the fans will still watch the games. Therefore, my guess is that the "influential owners" are viewing this in the lens of the NFL vs. NFLPA war, one that will likely get ugly when the existing CBA expires. So these owners view any concession by Goodell as a "loss" to the NFLPA, which thereby puts the owners in a weaker position during the upcoming extended lockout in 2020.
These owners don't see any downside to a court battle, either because a loss in court doesn't matter to them, or because they have enough hubris and arrogance to believe they will eventually prevail no matter the facts on the ground.
In isolation, if Goodell was to reduce or eliminate Brady's appeal, the NFL owners would make just as much money as they would if the suspension stands. The networks and sponsors aren't going to reduce their outlays because of this one decision; the fans will still watch the games. Therefore, my guess is that the "influential owners" are viewing this in the lens of the NFL vs. NFLPA war, one that will likely get ugly when the existing CBA expires. So these owners view any concession by Goodell as a "loss" to the NFLPA, which thereby puts the owners in a weaker position during the upcoming extended lockout in 2020.
These owners don't see any downside to a court battle, either because a loss in court doesn't matter to them, or because they have enough hubris and arrogance to believe they will eventually prevail no matter the facts on the ground.
I don't know where the notion of settlement negotiations being impossible comes from. Maybe it's a labor law thing. But it sounds wrong to me.simplyeric said:
Settlement offers and negotiations are inadmissible. That doesn't prevent a litigant from coughing the information out, thereby ringing the bell and risking being admonished by the Court.
I don't know, I have a hard time believing the NFL is going to leak information that a group of owners are pressuring Goodell here. It's not great PR, and I imagine a court is not going to look favorably upon it, should Brady be able to produce evidence of it.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13305114/new-england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-nfl-had-settlement-negotiations-appeal-brady-deflategate-suspension
"The report states that progress toward an out-of-court agreement has been minimal and that the likelihood of such an agreement, in the event that Brady's punishment is upheld in full, is low."
So...big news for everyone expecting Brady to agree to a settlement where he gets four games. Probably implies and even lower likelihood that Brady settles for something like 6 games.
"The report states that progress toward an out-of-court agreement has been minimal and that the likelihood of such an agreement, in the event that Brady's punishment is upheld in full, is low."
So...big news for everyone expecting Brady to agree to a settlement where he gets four games. Probably implies and even lower likelihood that Brady settles for something like 6 games.
Whether the owners have the right to opine or not, nothing stops any of them from sharing his view with Goodell or one of his colleagues. Hell, I think it's naive to think that our own Bob Kraft didn't do exactly that when the two of them were together at that retreat.lexrageorge said:
I doubt anyone is e-mailing opinion pieces for fear of discovery but in person discussions or even phone calls are likely going on. I'd be shocked if Roger isn't fully aware of how each and every change to the Brady penalties would be received.
In general, I think the communication among the sides and the other owners is much more open than many seem to be assuming here. This is not a court process, it's not transparent and that Goodell is both Judge and Party is unique but I doubt it stops settlement discussions or open communication.
If this reflects a leak from the NFL side, it's about the dumbest thing imaginable (with the caveat noted below).
It has influential owners acting in concert in an uncompetitive way and in a way that would taint the legitimacy of game results. This would screw not only the Patriots but the competitors of the teams the Pats would play during any period of suspension. Also, whatever Levy is counseling Goodell about should be firmly privileged, so the leak would represent a compromise of legally privileged attorney-client communications.
The only way this makes any sense coming from team Goodell is if somebody in that camp is greatly concerned that the NFL is overplaying its hand and about to get killed in federal court. In my experience, lawyers do not undercut their client's negotiating leverage this way to bring the client top its senses.
EDIT -- whatever the source, this report does not surprise me in the least and I am inclined to credit the allegation of owner meddling.
If anyone posts in BBTL again this season about Bob Kraft's purported great influence, he or she should be suspended from posting for 4 games. This is a sick joke at this point.
It has influential owners acting in concert in an uncompetitive way and in a way that would taint the legitimacy of game results. This would screw not only the Patriots but the competitors of the teams the Pats would play during any period of suspension. Also, whatever Levy is counseling Goodell about should be firmly privileged, so the leak would represent a compromise of legally privileged attorney-client communications.
The only way this makes any sense coming from team Goodell is if somebody in that camp is greatly concerned that the NFL is overplaying its hand and about to get killed in federal court. In my experience, lawyers do not undercut their client's negotiating leverage this way to bring the client top its senses.
EDIT -- whatever the source, this report does not surprise me in the least and I am inclined to credit the allegation of owner meddling.
If anyone posts in BBTL again this season about Bob Kraft's purported great influence, he or she should be suspended from posting for 4 games. This is a sick joke at this point.
I mean 6, but very, very sarcastically.RedOctober3829 said:
That there is a "low" chance that Brady reaches a settlement where he essentially withdraws his appeal and Kraftily accepts the full, original punishment would seem to not warrant mention.
My understanding (from previous posts) is that federal labor law only precludes the kind of "back channel" offers you were pushing.TheoShmeo said:
Nothing precludes offers communicated from counsel to counsel.
tims4wins said:
Not at all sure about that---remember, the leak also came with the NFL's longtime lawyer saying the whole suspension was going to fall (a legal opinion predicted by several in this thread!)
If Brady's camp actually felt that was the play, they can simply come out with a statement that the league approached them about a settlement, Kessler told the NFL that they should do the right thing and apologize and wipe out the suspension, and Brady's camp believes the league needs to decide whether it cares more about the law and the facts or internal league politics.
The most likely leaker of this news is an owner who dislikes Goodell and thinks Levy should have been commissioner last time---what they are setting up here is him as the wise advisor, in juxtaposition to Goodell the fool.
dcmissle said:
This didn't stop the owners from colluding during the uncapped year and then punishing the owners who broke with the collusion; punishments that included big salary cap penalties, which effected the teams' ability to get the best team on the field, which would effect the legitimacy of game results.
Yes. The league cannot circumvent the union and Brady's personal attorneys to try and reach a settlement with Brady directly. That in no way prevents the league from discussing settlement with the union. It would look terrible if Goodell is involved in those discussions directly, so I'm sure they're maintaining the pretense that he's outside these discussions.simplyeric said:
Not sure why you're being snarky. If you'd carefully read the previous lengthy discussion of the issue you'd already know this.
See my response above. This has been discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread.TheoShmeo said:
Could Levy be the leak? Runner up for the commissioner's job in 2006 suggests Goodell is both overplaying his hand and the pawn of a handful of owners.
Not a good look for the Sheriff.
Edit: As for owners, we should probably add Mara to the list as he was decidedly not sympathetic to Kraft following the punishment being handed down. I would still love to hear even one of these butthead owners explain why they think a draconian punishment was even remotely warranted for a crime that wasn't proven and doesn't matter.
Not a good look for the Sheriff.
Edit: As for owners, we should probably add Mara to the list as he was decidedly not sympathetic to Kraft following the punishment being handed down. I would still love to hear even one of these butthead owners explain why they think a draconian punishment was even remotely warranted for a crime that wasn't proven and doesn't matter.
The dispiriting thing to me in all of this is that it appears (at least according to all of the published reports) that very little if any consideration is being given to the actual facts and equity of the case in Goodell's appeal decision. i.e. the evidence suggests that TB had nothing to do with any purported effort to deflate the footballs, and the underlying science makes it as likely as not that no intentional deflation took place. Given those set of facts, the just outcome would be to remove the suspension entirely and maybe fine TB for non-cooperation. That the likelihood of that result is pretty much nil is as damning on the process as anything.dcdrew10 said:
bradcote said:
The leak that NFLPA offered a settlement is nearly 100% certain to be from the NFL. And will likely generate a pretty negative response from Brady's camp, I suspect, which might take the form of a public statement, or might take the form of a counter-leak
PedroKsBambino said:
amarshal2 said:
I don't really think that it's going to get a negative response from Brady's camp if the settlement offer was "0 games, exoneration of any involvement of deflating footballs, and a fine in line with Favre" like its being reported. ESPN is useless in this front. They've proven themselves to basically be Peter King-esque in their reporting since Ray Rice, printing whatever a brand-friendly report the NFL wants out there.
No, they're not. I have no idea why you would keep posting this. We're not talking about esoteric legal concepts buried in complicated case law. The text of the rule itself says that they're inadmissible only for certain purposes.TheoShmeo said:
There is nothing improper about the owners lobbying Goodell to reach a certain outcome. They are part of a multi-employer bargaining group under the same CBA. Goodell's ruling may set an important precedent going forward. This is no different than the owners lobbying Goodell to come down harder on Rice and Peterson after the video debacle. Whether it's proper for Goodell to entertain this feedback is another story.
It doesn't take 2 hours, and it doesn't take 24 footballs (although it does take one wet one), and it's already been done, way back in January:pappymojo said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gd0kGhIcF4
It's one of my biggest pet peeves in this whole thing that:
1. This is not a complicated technical question, and;
2. none of the supposed "experts" talking about this stuff on TV actually have expertise in this kind of practical engineering.
They bring out lawyers and physics professors and who-knows-what, instead of talking to people who do things like design car tires, or do thermal load modelling for HVAC systems, or who make vacuum sealed jars of food, or something, anything actually related to modelling and predicting atmospheric effects on air volume. There is a whole world full of un-glamourous industries who deal with this stuff day in and day out. It's made out to be this complex and mysterious realm of deep science, but it's not. It's a practical and well-understood mechanical engineering application, as seen in the video above. Leave it to a trade-school kid...
ESPN has a short SC blurb that concludes that because the NFLPA extended an offer to settle, means " one side at least wants to avoid going to court". Of course, he then goes on to report that the offer was likely 0 game suspension and a fine.Myt1 said:
For the unanointed, here's the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 408:
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witnesss bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witnesss bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
I'm glad you posted this because I've meaning to do so myself. Rule 408 is not a blanket bar on evidence of negotiations or offers to compromise. It depends on what it's being used for. For example, if Goodell made a settlement offer to the NFLPA, that could potentially be used to show that he is manifestly partial because he's playing the role of arbitrator and party.Myt1 said:
Plus, admissibility does not matter. There will be no jury in federal court, only a judge. You can say whatever the hell you please about negotiations, and the other side cannot un-ring that bell. If it upsets the judge and motivates him or her to rule in a particular way, then that's what it does. The judge will be far too shrewd to rely on this point in any written decision.
Points made previously. This has become a juvenile discussion point.
Points made previously. This has become a juvenile discussion point.
Marc, You meant to delete the "im-" before partial, right? 
And exactly. I mean, one of the stated exceptions to the rule is to show witness bias. How could that possibly be in play here?
This isn't quite on the same level as "Hearsay is inadmissible" being swiss cheesed with exceptions, but it's a rule of evidence: they're almost never blanket prohibitions.
And exactly. I mean, one of the stated exceptions to the rule is to show witness bias. How could that possibly be in play here?
This isn't quite on the same level as "Hearsay is inadmissible" being swiss cheesed with exceptions, but it's a rule of evidence: they're almost never blanket prohibitions.
Oh dear. Thanks for pointing that out!Myt1 said:Marc, You meant to delete the "im-" before partial, right?
And exactly. I mean, one of the stated exceptions to the rule is to show witness bias. How could that possibly be in play here?
This isn't quite on the same level as "Hearsay is inadmissible" being swiss cheesed with exceptions, but it's a rule of evidence: they're almost never blanket prohibitions.
But why should Goodell be allowed to take owner's opinions on the weight of the evidence or the punishment? The owners are not qualified to rule on the former, and the latter is delegated to Goodell, not specific "influential" owners. While not a court process, the appeals process is something that is governed by the CBA and labor law.TheoShmeo said:
yep said:
By the way, I love that. 13.3 psi to 11.9 psi. Under three minutes of work to demonstrate the concept using one ball.
It's not difficult, people.
(Now, the standard caveats about how we've moved on from the science and it doesn't matter, that the science doesn't explain the offseason deflator text, that the court case will hang on process not what happened, etc., etc.).
Carry on.
If I'm representing Tom, I really want to establish that the delay between the hearing date and ruling is on the NFL. Which means I may have to refute the fig leaf the NFL will try to throw over this -- "oh, we were negotiating..." Response -- "actually, your honor, we were not ... We received a last minute settlement overture two days before the ruling came down, and we promptly rejected it and indicated what might be acceptable.""
The NFL has been slow walking this decision, I think. I make them pay a price for that.
The NFL has been slow walking this decision, I think. I make them pay a price for that.
The back channel or counsel distinction is not relevant in my view. Meaning that I totally leave open the possibility that it is going through counsel and only through counsel. That said, it would not remotely surprise me in the real world if it went through back channels too.Average Reds said:
The point, to me, is much less HOW the offers are being communicated than the fact that an offer for a settlement offer (reduction in games in exchange for "global peace" and no further court process) has likely been made to Tom and the NFLPA.
I have rarely been part of any settlement offer that allowed for the possibility of further litigation. People settle in order to put something completely to bed, with some rare exceptions.
You can repeat that as often as you want and you will be wrong each time.dcmissle said:
I practice bankruptcy law. I am in front of bankruptcy judges frequently. I have never been in front of a jury (except for in law school moot court).
It is true that crafty lawyers sometimes weave in talk of settlements, and the nature of the offers, during chambers conferences, and even on the record at times. It is also true that most judges get super pissed off when they do it and will say that "I don't want to hear anything about the nature of the discussions" while at the same time encouraging settlement discussions themselves.
FRE 408 applies whether it's a judge or a jury, and the fact that Judges are more sensitive to not tainting a jury than they are themselves does not mean that they will listen to settlement talk, especially on the record.
You can call that naive or a technical difference but I've been in front of federal bankruptcy judges for over 28 years and what I am saying has applied throughout. Make no mistake, it's not totally hard and fast, and there is a distinction between judges and juries. But acting as if the rules do not apply in front of judges or the suggestion that they do is juvenile is plainly wrong.
One more thing: The notion that one side or the other made a settlement offer will somehow taint the judge is ridiculous. Settlement offers get made all the time. The motivations for them are what they are, they are usually multi-faceted and complex, and only a fool on the bench would think he or she knows exactly what the motivation was upon learning that an offer had been made or even the terms. Most judges assume there is a lot going on that they are unaware of -- they say that all the time -- and most judges favor settlement in that it takes them off the hook and makes life easier for them. That is, unless they are gunning to write an opinion on a certain topic.