NortheasternPJ said:Posting a tweet or something here isn't contributing to anything. I think people around here give SoSH way more weight than it actually carries.
DrewDawg said:Yes, it's not a legal, official gag order. Yes, the judge told them to tone it done.
It's like when Rev tells everyone to stop the piling on.
Dude, you told someone who has been practicing for a decade that there was a gag order. When he told you there wasn't, you told him it was, linked a picture of it, and then said that it was "literally the first thing," Berman did. What color is that kettle?Van Everyman said:Ok, then, what is the material difference between what Berman wrote and an official gag order?
As an aside, not sure it is worth being this strident over in the non-lawyers thread.
Edit: answered above but the latter point still applies. Let's tone down the rhetoric shall we?
Well Berman wants a deal and the NFL is refusing. We don't know who leaked it, but if Brady is giving the illusion that he is willing to make a deal, id say he is playing from a hand a power. We shall soon find out.snowmanny said:Why isn't the takeaway that things look bad for Brady?
Pathetic and lazy on their part. Gasior wins.steveluck7 said:And they just gave it airtime on CSN sports tonight
J.McG said:IANAL, but I think Brady's stated willingness to take a game or more in exchange for exoneration may be more strategic ploy than a concession made on the weakness of his case, knowing full well there's no way Goodell's moving off his demand that Brady admit guilt/accept Wells Report. Similar to Kessler last week admitting Brady could have better handled Wells' request for his phone/texts. Brady again appears to be the one open to compromise, while the NFL refuses to budge an inch.
I'm not reading too much into the settlement talks today, considering they are being universally reported as having gone nowhere and this Schefter news hasn't caused many waves anywhere else. Not to mention Berman wasn't even present today.
@DominaDoreen You are now the one in charge of making people name their sources? Let me know when@mortreport gives up his @NFL sources.
You are correct - I've softened up the more definitive language in my above post.There is no Rev said:Let's not get carried away--this is all conjecture as of yet.
J.McG said:You are correct - I've softened up the more definitive language in my above post.
There's nothing wrong with a little entertainment in this beast of a thread. That alleged settlement is so ridiculous that no one should take it seriously. The NFL would roll the dice on a judge's ruling - even if they didn't like their chances - before accepting that deal.E5 Yaz said:
This has nothing to do with how much weight SoSH carries.
It has everything to do with most of us being sick and tired of bullshit tweets from people with no demonstrated knowledge of the situation
Unless, of course, the agreement states that it is not precedential. I'd imagine the NFLPA would require such a stipulation before agreeing to anything more than a nominal fine.lambeau said:The owners after Rice, Peterson and Hardy know they can't wait for the legal system to finish before the League and teams act--they've beefed up their investigative unit, but they lack subpoena power. So cooperation is suddenly a big deal--to them and the union. Taking even one game for lack of sooperation is precedent-setting. I think the NFLPA would discourage it unless Berman is strongly signalling bad news to them.
If you were D Smith would you accept 'non precedenital' and believe it would not be, in a system where RG is the prosecutor and the judge? Awful tough to do so I think.djbayko said:Unless, of course, the agreement states that it is not precedential. I'd imagine the NFLPA would require such a stipulation before agreeing to anything more than a nominal fine.
Why would Brady concede that a refusal to hand over his personal phone (or computer, or diary, or sperm) is worthy of a suspension when that precedent has never been set. It goes against the bigger issue - players' rights under the CBA.
If Brady accepts a suspension of any length, then the exact language won't matter. The damage will already be done and all anyone will remember will be him admitting guilt. He needs to go for the kill here even if the risk is greater.
I don't buy the leak. There's literally 0 reason for Brady to accept even a game for non cooperation. There's nothing to lose at this point. I'd honestly rather have Brady be suspended all four and showcase what a laughing stock the NFL is then miss a single game by giving in to this corrupt system.
Tom Brady is open to accepting some form of suspension, but only if it can be for failing to cooperate with the NFL rather than admitting to the Wells' Report findings, per league sources. The NFL has been adamant that Brady admits to the report's findings, something he doesn't seem willing to ever do. With that in mind, settlement discussions have gone "nowhere", according to sources, and the two sides are back in court today.
Everything is easy for us to say. It's easy for us to say, "Hey TB12, your rep and legacy are SHOT, just get back on the field!"
Screw them (us) too, insofar as Brady's decision on what to do here is concerned. Like Terry Francona once said, "If you start caring what the fans think, soon you'll be sitting with them."And at this point, screw what anyone thinks (or "PR") outside of the NEP fans.
This. Some "look at me" assholes will bring it up in the secret room so they have something to write about after his nomination and election is announced. Same with Belichick.It'll still be a huge upset if #12 is not a first-ballot HoF.
It's fair to assume that Berman knows what kind of offers are being kicked around, right? Wouldn't it piss him off if one side is negotiating through the media?cshea said:Schefter: League sources say Brady will accept reduced suspension only on non-cooperation. Needs exoneration from WR.
Zolak: Brady pissed. Won't accept a single game, views it as an admission of guilt.
Someone's lying, again. Gee wonder which side.
BigJimEd said:So why would the NFL be so insistent on Brady accepting the Wells report?
PR? I don't see it. If Brady misses any games it will just reinforce to most that Brady is guilty.
To justify the Wells report to the other owners? I have to think most owners don't care if Brady agrees to it. I have to think most would prefer it to go away at this point and would consider any suspension a win.
Confident they can give the NFLPA a big defeat and just don't want to budge? Seems pretty risky to me.
Hubris? Other?
BigJimEd said:So why would the NFL be so insistent on Brady accepting the Wells report?
PR? I don't see it. If Brady misses any games it will just reinforce to most that Brady is guilty.
To justify the Wells report to the other owners? I have to think most owners don't care if Brady agrees to it. I have to think most would prefer it to go away at this point and would consider any suspension a win.
Confident they can give the NFLPA a big defeat and just don't want to budge? Seems pretty risky to me.
Hubris? Other?
This may have been the position before the settlement conference, and when the NFL wasn't going to budge, Brady changes his mind, talks to Zo.cshea said:Schefter: League sources say Brady will accept reduced suspension only on non-cooperation. Needs exoneration from WR.
Zolak: Brady pissed. Won't accept a single game, views it as an admission of guilt.
Someone's lying, again. Gee wonder which side.
Amen to all of this and it is extremely frustrating,though unsurprising, that the media covering this shitshow won't call it like it is.dcdrew10 said:
It's not just the Wells Report that Brady and the NFLPA has to accept, it's several things, including the commissioner's "authority to suspend Brady and other players for conduct detrimental to the league and obstructing a league investigation". Goodell and the NFL are trying to re-write the CBA without going to the negotiating table. It sets the bar higher for the NFLPA 5 years before the next CBA negotiations; they are going to have to pay in blood of their first born to get some sort of reasonable player discapline system back, if they acquiesce to these demands.
The more this farce plays out, the more it becomes a power play in advance of the 2020 CBA. We keep asking why would the NFL destroy the reputation of one of its 2-3 most marketable stars over football inflation, which they never gave a shit about? Part of it is probably stupidity and pettiness on the side of the NFL, part of it is a crime of opportunity, but part of it is a calculated move. Brady will be gone by the next CBA and there will be new superstars to drive tickets and merchandising and if the NFL is able to use this as a way to get more control and money out of the players then every cent spent on the Wells "report" and fighting this in court is worth it.
It's also a great way to recover from the Rice shibacle. The NFL will be able to demand literally anything from the players when they investigate. Shit that you would never be required to handover to a prosecutor. This is 100% stacking the deck against the players because Goodell can't do discipline right; I mean his biggest thing is "being able to look them in the eyes" and decide if they are being truthful. In what world is that a reasonable standard of fucking proof?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/19/brady-willing-to-accept-reduced-suspension-for-failure-to-cooperate/For Brady, taking a one-game suspension for not cooperating but not admitting responsibility for football deflation gives him a potentially acceptable middle ground. More importantly, it makes him seem reasonable before Judge Berman, at a time when the NFL's "agree to all of these things and then we'll talk about a reduced suspension" position seems a little unreasonable. In a case that can go either way when it's time for a judge who is pushing for settlement to issue a ruling, it's alway good to be the side perceived as being reasonable.
J.McG said:
I suppose because it would give some sort of legitimization to this entire farce. In the absence of a settlement, right now the best case scenario for the NFL is the 4-game suspension of one of their greatest players ever for an incident that emerged due to an erroneous tweet and that an increasing number of people doubt ever really happened.So why would the NFL be so insistent on Brady accepting the Wells report?
Great post.dcdrew10 said:
It's not just the Wells Report that Brady and the NFLPA has to accept, it's several things, including the commissioner's "authority to suspend Brady and other players for conduct detrimental to the league and obstructing a league investigation". Goodell and the NFL are trying to re-write the CBA without going to the negotiating table. It sets the bar higher for the NFLPA 5 years before the next CBA negotiations; they are going to have to pay in blood of their first born to get some sort of reasonable player discapline system back, if they acquiesce to these demands.
The more this farce plays out, the more it becomes a power play in advance of the 2020 CBA. We keep asking why would the NFL destroy the reputation of one of its 2-3 most marketable stars over football inflation, which they never gave a shit about? Part of it is probably stupidity and pettiness on the side of the NFL, part of it is a crime of opportunity, but part of it is a calculated move. Brady will be gone by the next CBA and there will be new superstars to drive tickets and merchandising and if the NFL is able to use this as a way to get more control and money out of the players then every cent spent on the Wells "report" and fighting this in court is worth it.
It's also a great way to recover from the Rice shibacle. The NFL will be able to demand literally anything from the players when they investigate. Shit that you would never be required to handover to a prosecutor. This is 100% stacking the deck against the players because Goodell can't do discipline right; I mean his biggest thing is "being able to look them in the eyes" and decide if they are being truthful. In what world is that a reasonable standard of fucking proof?
With these people, what agree to all these things and then we'll talk about reducing the suspension means is that after you agree to them we'll leak that to the media then we'll talk about how we still won't reduce the suspension.
natpastime162 said:What does the NFLPA get from a settlement?
As far as the NFL is concerned, isn't a settlement just tacit approval instead of legal approval?
What does the NFLPA get from a settlement?
As far as the NFL is concerned, isn't a settlement just tacit approval instead of legal approval?
where is it definitively attributed to league sources?MuppetAsteriskTalk said:Now that this leak about Brady being willing to accept games is being attributed to league sources, I'm not sure why we're not just ignoring it.