so 4 game suspension for "failing to cooperate" and the only thing he did not do is provide his phone. This is so getting overturned.Albert Breer @AlbertBreer 28s29 seconds ago
And he affirms Brady refusing to turn over his texts/emails was only example of Brady not cooperating.
LuckyBen said:Wells obviously realizes with people questioning the report, he could lose his money train from the NFL. Wouldn't surprise me if Kraft called and told him just that.
Guess what Tom. You don't have subpoena power and its not collectively bargained that he has to hand over his phone.ifmanis5 said:Wells says Tom answered all questions in first interview but Wells is pissed he didn't have proper access to Brady's phone.
That's not even in the report.ifmanis5 said:Question about Pats co-operating with investigation. Wells says he wanted second interview with Tom and didn't get it. Wells is pissed on this point.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:I'm not that worried about the on-field effects of the suspension, even if it does stay at four games (which I think unlikely). We have tons of cap space and adding some kind of emergency backup for a few games will hardly make a difference. I expect Jimmy G to be pretty decent, obviously not TB12 level, but I'd say the difference in expected wins over four games is unlikely to be larger than one.
If you want to make the point that the officials "allowed" McNally the opportunity, then you can start to build a case for it being a sting operation. But that doesn't make McNally's action any less a violation.pappymojo said:Is that McNally's fault or the officials fault? Also, you know the start of the game was delayed, correct? Also, that the crews for the playoffs were not the crews from the regular season?
Hoya81 said:
Ted Wells on Brady's guilt: "If I were sitting on a jury, I would have checked the box that said, 'proven.'"
— Bart Hubbuch (@BartHubbuch) May 12, 2015
RedOctober3829 said:
so 4 game suspension for "failing to cooperate" and the only thing he did not do is provide his phone. This is so getting overturned.
Myt1 said:That's not even in the report.
There's no way the NFLPA will allow the precedent to be set that the NFL office can require personal cell phones to be handed over.RedOctober3829 said:
so 4 game suspension for "failing to cooperate" and the only thing he did not do is provide his phone. This is so getting overturned.
I don't know. The fact that it's tacked onto a very specific and believable story about Jim being ambushed at home makes it ring true to me. Otherwise, it's a very elaborate lie.Bleedred said:Exactly. In all probability, the Wells version of events in the report is accurate and Florio's source is not
Why? Thats not putting his personal reputation on the line that Brady is definitely a bad actor, that's a clever way of repeating the exact conclusion that's in the report. Its the exact same standard that is used in civil trials.PedroKsBambino said:
Don't tell Stich1.
Right, and there's no evidence of global warming just because my Outer Banks cottage is now a dollhouse for baby sharks.Mooch said:Ted Wells said that the Pats were all over him from Day 1 on why the Pats didn't get a warning on a "sting operation" and Wells claims there was no evidence of a sting.
OK Ted.
Wait - Paul, Weiss attorneys were present at the first three interviews, not just NFL security officials? Is that what he said?RIFan said:Ted Wells seems surprisingly thin skinned. The other fact that came out of this is the failure to present McNally, was after a total of 4 interviews (1 with Wells and 3 by his associates).
This is a bad idea. For the NFL and Wells, not the Pats.ifmanis5 said:Wells sounds very defensive and pissed.
Now that Im really surprised he said.Hoya81 said:
Which texts by Brady and to who?
Holy shit if true. Wells must be taking one hell of a beating over this.HowBoutDemSox said:Wait - Paul, Weiss attorneys were present at the first three interviews, not just NFL security officials? Is that what he said?
If I were a betting man, this will be received less as Wells sounding defensive and more him doubling down on Brady being guilty.dcmissle said:This is a bad idea. For the NFL and Wells, not the Pats.
Marciano490 said:I had a legal ethics teacher once make the point that the three major professionals who charge by the hour are hookers, babysitters and lawyers.
RedOctober3829 said:
so 4 game suspension for "failing to cooperate" and the only thing he did not do is provide his phone. This is so getting overturned.
Wells is a God in the legal field. He's probably never questioned, ever, by anyone in his firm or in the ABA. If questions were asked challenging the efficacy of his work product and his impartiality, I'm not surprised he got defensive. I would have loved to have heard this...and would have loved more if a good litigator was planted among the questioners.RIFan said:Ted Wells seems surprisingly thin skinned. The other fact that came out of this is the failure to present McNally, was after a total of 4 interviews (1 with Wells and 3 by his associates).
Van Everyman said:If I were a betting man, this will be received less as Wells sounding defensive and more him doubling down on Brady being guilty.
if Paul Weiss could not get all the info they needed after one interview, let alone four then they were incompetent. you don't generally get multiple depositions of the same person, so you have to be prepared for everything. same should apply.RIFan said:Ted Wells seems surprisingly thin skinned. The other fact that came out of this is the failure to present McNally, was after a total of 4 interviews (1 with Wells and 3 by his associates).
Forget the timing. Is this really a scenario where you want to alienate certain people in your audience? You'll have lost some peoole in the room as soon as they see the subject matter and get any whiff of your slant.drleather2001 said:Seriously, KFP, unless you devote at least 10 minutes to the Ideal Gas Law stuff alone, it will be completely incomprehensible.
Stitch01 said:Why? Thats not putting his personal reputation on the line that Brady is definitely a bad actor, that's a clever way of repeating the exact conclusion that's in the report. Its the exact same standard that is used in civil trials.
Bleedred said:Wells is a God in the legal field. He's probably never questioned, ever, by anyone in his firm or in the ABA. If questions were asked challenging the efficacy of his work product and his impartiality, I'm not surprised he got defensive. I would have loved to have heard this...and would have loved more if a good litigator was planted among the questioners.
Marciano490 said:
Not to fantasize too loudly, but the real jeopardy for him and his firm would be other, larger clients or potential clients questioning the report and his/PW's integrity.
Yeah Im pretty surprised by some of his later answers. Thought the jury answer was really good, the rest of this seems like he is putting his reputation on the line with about zero upside IMO.PedroKsBambino said:
He did not specify civil trial in the quoted section, as an aside...words matter in these things.
He is conducting a press conference where he has said it is 'proven'. If you don't think that is putting his reputation on the line, you are absolutely kidding yourself
E5 Yaz said:
not by Goodell or Henderson, it isn't. it only gets overturned if it goes to federal court
That's because juries are often filled with idiots. And this report was written for juries.Hoya81 said:
Ted Wells on Brady's guilt: "If I were sitting on a jury, I would have checked the box that said, 'proven.'"
— Bart Hubbuch (@BartHubbuch) May 12, 2015
Unless there's texts between Brady and McNally, I'm not really sure if there would have been a smoking gun.Stitch01 said:Now that Im really surprised he said.