This is insane. The NFL wouldn't try to track down dirty laundry on a federal judge....They'd do what they usually do and just make shit up.ifmanis5 said:
But really, assuming this is sarcasm.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
But really, assuming this is sarcasm.
I was. But this case has been so bizarre, it actually sounds like not a joke.Average Reds said:
[emoji1]Captaincoop said:
I do think it is at least possible that the NFL is among the dumbest wealthy and powerful people to appear before this judge though.
Because clearly the judge will rule for the union.snowmanny said:
Gidget was leaning left almost the entire time in Norma Rae.
jsinger121 said:
Of course thats the sticking point. If the NFL doesn't get Brady to admit guilt (or find him guilty through the "arbitration process"), then Goodell looks like a complete fucking buffoon to the owners/public for spending north of $5 million dollars on a report that couldn't fucking prove a thing.
The NFL isn't trying to tar and feather Brady. That's incidental. They're simply trying to cover up what has been a clusterfuck since day 1.
OilCanShotTupac said:
To me the funniest/saddest thing that sums up this whole fiasco is that ifman made a throwaway joke and nigh on everyone assumed he was serious. We're better than this, people. We are not Colts or Ravens fans. We have to maintain our sense of humour or the terrorists have won. And when I say terrorists I am referring to the members of that nefarious group, al-Goodaela.
Why did Feely have to say the same thing twice? Goodell tried to ice the kicker?ifmanis5 said:
nighthob said:
I'm going with "ifman wasn't joking but is now totally pretending it was a joke after everyone called him a dummy."
Was Feely actually saying that they recognize the need for an independent arbitrator (meaning not ROG) or am I reading that wrong?
This is what I thought for awhile, but I think it's beyond that now. Between the press and Berman's criticisms, the owners know that that report is a piece of shit and that Brady is not going to admit any guilt. Goodell's not pulling off some last minute miracle where the report gets vindicated and it suddenly looks like he did a good job. Yet despite the invitation of the judge to get involved, the owners seem fine allowing it to play out with Goodell insisting on the "admit guilt" condition that they know is a nonstarter.Kenny F'ing Powers said:
So either Goodell and his legal team have pulled the wool over the owners eyes in some way where he's still able to tout the report to them as a credible basis for the punishment, or, more likely, that certain owners have their own agenda and that the $5M spent on the report isn't a concern.
If the owners are pissed at Goodell for this, I think it's more likely to be due to the fact that they told him what to do and left it up to him to generate the justification and make it stick. His orders were probably to rig this thing against Brady. They knew that to do it, he'd have to basically act like the shady prick he is. And they won't be mad that the report was bullshit, they'll be mad that it was bullshit that didn't stick.
If I was in Mara's shoes, I'd do the same thing. There's a fair chance this turns into a shitstorm of epic proportions, and anyone with their DNA in this is going to share in the recriminations.
Question. Why would an appellate court grant a stay to the NFL? Wouldn't that essentially be just reversing Judge Berman's decision since the appeal would not likely be heard until well past week 4 of the NFL season?
edit: that is to say, if the appellate court is inclined to grant the stay, would they just issue a ruling that reverses Berman? Can they?
edit: that is to say, if the appellate court is inclined to grant the stay, would they just issue a ruling that reverses Berman? Can they?
It's totally unclear whether he's reporting this or guessing. Not super impressed with his approach.soxhop411 said:
soxhop411 said:
This presumes that the Judge will rule in favor of the NFL, since a ruling in favor of the NFLPA (vacating the suspension) would not prompt a request for a stay.
More likely is the notion that he rushed to tweet out the news without thinking through the implications of what he wrote.
He was on with beetle and Zo earlier. i didn't catch his interview but heard the hosts discussing it afterwards. He did mention "both sides" preparing to file for a stay so he certainly put **some** thought into it.Average Reds said:
MarcSullivaFan said:
What a load of garbage. He's just guessing. If he's right, he looks smart. If he's wrong, he'll make up an excuse.
steveluck7 said:
As a matter of logic you are incorrect. The NFL cannot ask for a stay that re-imposes a suspension pending a final adjudication, because the suspension is the irreparable harm.
He's either assuming that the ruling will favor the NFL or he was careless with his terminology.
Not my area of law, but basically a decision is made by the court. The losing party may have a right to appeal. If they do, they could ask for a stay pending the appeal as long as they have sufficient reasons for it. The NFL does not seem to. The NFLPA might.
Is Wallachlegal an anagram for SharksofVegas? No matter how many times I shuffle the letters, they don't quite fit.
Sides never got close to an agreement.
https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/638408808465829888
https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/638408808465829888
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/638408808465829888
https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/638408808465829888
link to tweet
Remember that game a couple of years ago (Panthers) where last play of the game, Gronk got mugged in the end zone, flag thrown, but after some consultation the flag was picked-up, and Brady went ape-shit, Pats lose...
I'm getting a sense of deja vue, we all saw this mugging, the flag has been thrown, but...
Hope I'm wrong.
I'm getting a sense of deja vue, we all saw this mugging, the flag has been thrown, but...
Hope I'm wrong.
If he rules against the NFL with a scathing opinion, could Goodell sue Berman for defamation......?Average Reds said:
I know my stock is pretty low, but I assure you that was a joke.
Did you not all see my 'Defamation' haiku in the poetry thread?!?
Did you not all see my 'Defamation' haiku in the poetry thread?!?
DC, what are your thoughts on whether Berman should contain alternative grounds in his decision if he decides for Brady. If it is a narrow finding that they did not provide him with fair hearing by excluding inquiry into Pash and the possibility that it would show Goodel evident partiality because he was involved, then Berman could skirt the remaining issues. Because he is reviewing it de novo, any alternative bases are irrelevant, because the 2d Cir. could determine any other grounds that exist.
Do you see any reason for Berman to opine on other legal issues (other than wanting to lay into the NFL for atmospheric purposes?)
Do you see any reason for Berman to opine on other legal issues (other than wanting to lay into the NFL for atmospheric purposes?)
