[LOCKED] 2019 AB Watch: Non-legal Views Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,886
Pats clearly can get back the guaranteed money if Brown is suspended, per Breer's Tweet. Less clear if they can get it back if he goes on the Exempt List, though they can certainly argue under the highlighted ("takes any action that materially undermines the public's respect for, or is materially critical of, the Club, the Player's teammates or the Club's ownership, coaches," etc., guarantees will "null and void."):

View: https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/1171780783717191680


(sorry mobile folks, it's a photo tweet)
I would not take this anywhere near a bank. In reading the operative language, Breer needs to be more sensitive to verb tense. Then he has to take into account the rough justice of arbitration, which is where this would be heading.

This is above Breer’s Pay grade.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
Sending the POS (Hill) to the hospital was the only thing Jalen Ramsey did right on Sunday.
The NFL was "seriously considering" putting Hill on the exempt list in April or May and never did it. And that's with the recordings and it was the offseason. If they do it with Brown now the NFLPA will go ballistic.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,642
Here
Does the NFLPA have any incentive to cooperate with Goodell on this?
Goodell will suspend Brown for 6 games if they don’t. So might be best to do so for now and make an issue of it in next CBA.

Now, also depends on what Goodell is demanding. No way I’m giving this clown my cell phone for an NFL rape investigation, for example.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
Starting---BB talking about Miami.

They sound really good based on his descriptions.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
Said no expanding on AB and his attorney's statements. Said they're taking it seriously.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
BB is expecting AB to practice and preparing one day at a time in regards to him playing Sunday.
 

mwonow

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,047
This is a tough one. On the one hand, I don't think a player should be put on the exempt list based off one civil suit accusation. On the other hand, if AB plays this weekend, the optics could be terrible for the league and the team. The Patriots might not care as much, they don't seem to let that noise bother them. For the league though, I'm picturing AB romping into the end zone, celebrating his TD, and then every media organization running a story about a player accused of rape, celebrating in the end zone five days later as though nothing happened.
What if he celebrates in the end zone with something that simulates a response to what *has* happened? Joe Buck might just pop...
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,930
"Anyone have any questions about Miami?" Followed by a rash of reporters asking about Brown. Then BB walks out. The whole thing lasted about four minutes.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
3,262
BB speaks in 15 minutes. Which reporter steps up and asks the first question about this?

Haha. BB seemed extra annoyed and ticked off today. You could sense his rage brewing towards a few of those reporters and all their AB questions.
 

mwonow

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,047
I would think that if you were AB, you' very much appreciate BB's approach to this - and your agent would be wise to point out that this is how he responds to EVERYTHING about a player.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,779
I'm sorry, I was told multiple times in these threads that couldn't happen.
IANAL, but does "takes any action" mean action taken since the contract was signed, or does it go back to actions taken pre-signing?

Oops, already noted by Morgan's Magic Snowplow.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,635
"Anyone have any questions about Miami?" Followed by a rash of reporters asking about Brown. Then BB walks out. The whole thing lasted about four minutes.
That has been Bill's MO since the beginning of time. It was no different from he replaced local hero Bernie Kosar with Vinny Testaverde. Or the day after Spygate broke when BB was willing to talk only about the upcoming Chargers game.

Bill is a football coach, first and foremost. There's nothing he can say that helps the team with regards to the AB situation at this point.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,642
Here
Brown at practice today, taking it day by day, organization takes accusations seriously. That’s that.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
3 minutes and 50 seconds and not one question not about Antonio Brown
Instead of the straight "did you know?" the best question was the one asking if he was practicing and if you were prepared to have him available. Because that gets to the heart of some of it. And BB said he's practicing.

Can't wait for some long distance iPhone pics of AB warming up.

Brady speaks later this afternoon.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,071
Q: "Do you think he will take extra care, like Randy Moss did?"
BB: "I didn't say that."
Q: "I'm asking you---will he?"
BB: "I don't know."
Q: "You don't know if he will take extra attention?"
BB: "I don't know."
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,886
IANAL, but does "takes any action" mean action taken since the contract was signed, or does it go back to actions taken pre-signing?
It’s what is commonly known as an executory contract, covering obligations going forward on both sides. “Takes” in this context sensibly means, from now on.

This does not mean that prior conduct can never be the basis for voiding a contract. It commonly is, and those occasions are usually covered by promises called covenants.

That’s not what Breer cited and that’s why Breer is over his head.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,779
It’s what is commonly known as an executory contract, covering obligations going forward on both sides. “Takes” in this context sensibly means, from now on.

This does not mean that prior conduct can never be the basis for voiding a contract. It commonly is, and those occasions are usually covered by promises called covenants.

That’s not what Breer cited and that’s why Breer is over his head.

grazie mille
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,642
Here
Rosenhaus on TV saying they’ve been anticipating this and it’s a money-grab, which means one of two things:

1. Pats knew and are claiming they didn’t for PR, or:

2. Rosenhaus just burned a serious bridge and might well cost future clients millions because he withheld this information.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,615
Oregon
Rosenhaus on TV saying they’ve been anticipating this and it’s a money-grab, which means one of two things:

1. Pats knew and are claiming they didn’t for PR, or:

2. Rosenhaus just burned a serious bridge and might well cost future clients millions because he withheld this information.
In means no such thing, on either of your points
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,615
Oregon
Mike Reiss ESPN Staff Writer
Bill Belichick says Antonio Brown will practice today. "On Antonio's situation, both Antonio and his representatives have made statements, so I'm not going to be expanding on any of those. They are what they are. We've looked into the situation. We're taking it very seriously, all the way through the organization. I'm sure there are questions, but I'm not going to be entering a discussion about that today."
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,642
Here
In means no such thing, on either of your points
If he has an obligation at the client’s demand, then dump the client. You can’t put teams in this situation and expect no consequences. It’s bullshit if the Pats first found out last night and the player and agent knew this was coming beforehand.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
3,554
All I read was that the Pats were "taken by surprise" which could mean anything from they had no idea this was even out there to they knew but were surprised by the timing of the lawsuit.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,615
Oregon
If he has an obligation at the client’s demand, then dump the client. You can’t put teams in this situation and expect no consequences. It’s bullshit if the Pats first found out last night and the player and agent knew this was coming beforehand.
Rosenhaus works for Brown. He has worked for a lot of clients ... including a recently retired TE who might or might not want to return to the Patriots.

Did Rosenhaus tell the Steelers this was going on as it happened when Brown was in Pittsburgh? Did he tell the Raiders when they negotiated his contract there?

Does any agent tell any team everything about the person who employs them?
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,939
Santa Monica, CA
All I read was that the Pats were "taken by surprise" which could mean anything from they had no idea this was even out there to they knew but were surprised by the timing of the lawsuit.
I was about to ask...did Schefter's report allow for the possibility that the Pats knew about the allegations, but were surprised that the lawsuit was filed this week?

Also, there's the obvious possibility that his report is simply wrong.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,635
If he has an obligation at the client’s demand, then dump the client. You can’t put teams in this situation and expect no consequences. It’s bullshit if the Pats first found out last night and the player and agent knew this was coming beforehand.
I think you're reading too much into the Rosenhaus statements. Assuming Rosenhaus is telling the truth regarding prior knowledge (which is an assumption), there are scenarios where Brown may have discussed confidentially that he may be victimized by an extortion attempt in the future. We don't really know what Rosenhaus knew prior to yesterday. Maybe both thought the accuser was bluffing. Or that nothing would happen until 2020.

What Rosenhaus is doing right now is defending his client while also playing the extortion angle. Which is what you expect the agent to do. Hopefully he's also got a list of lawyer's that AB can contact.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,134
Gallows Hill
I've seen some talk about "How did the Patriots security team not know this before they signed him? Nothing was being investigated by police and nothing had been filed on him until yesterday. What other approach should they take?
I’m glad that someone brought this up because the topic of “why didn’t team security know about this?” Came up in the wake of the Aaron Hernandez arrest. There was a story from a former Patriots security director at the time that the then current security director Mark Briggs lacked the local contacts in law enforcement to adequately keep track of player activity. Kraft responded to this claim by citing that Briggs (paraphrasing) is an expert in stadium security and anti-terrorism management and that keeping fans safe at events is their top priority.

So basically, Kraft cares way more about having his security people concentrate on stadium security and investigating threats than following their players around. And as fans we should all applaud them for that.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,635
I was about to ask...did Schefter's report allow for the possibility that the Pats knew about the allegations, but were surprised that the lawsuit was filed this week?

Also, there's the obvious possibility that his report is simply wrong.
Should be noted that the official press release from the Pats says nothing about having or lacking advanced knowledge of the matter. Schefter is quoting "sources" who may or may not have been in the know. Schefter is good, but there are scenarios where only a couple of people in the Pats organization knew about the possibility of a lawsuit but didn't say anything to anyone, and simply didn't answer Schefter's call.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
Rosenhaus works for Brown. He has worked for a lot of clients ... including a recently retired TE who might or might not want to return to the Patriots.

Did Rosenhaus tell the Steelers this was going on as it happened when Brown was in Pittsburgh? Did he tell the Raiders when they negotiated his contract there?

Does any agent tell any team everything about the person who employs them?
The reason it could be important is that player contracts are also subject to state contract law. If the Patriots were smart enough to ask the right question, they could theoretically have a basis for voiding the contract that is separate from the detrimental conduct language that has already been posted.

There is no duty to speak, but there is a duty in contract formation to make accurate representations or not make material omissions once the right question has been asked.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
40,445
Mtigawi
This has been said a million times but bears repeating - BB press conferences may be a bigger highlight of this dynasty than the SBs.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,635
I’m glad that someone brought this up because the topic of “why didn’t team security know about this?” Came up in the wake of the Aaron Hernandez arrest. There was a story from a former Patriots security director at the time that the then current security director Mark Briggs lacked the local contacts in law enforcement to adequately keep track of player activity. Kraft responded to this claim by citing that Briggs (paraphrasing) is an expert in stadium security and anti-terrorism management and that keeping fans safe at events is their top priority.

So basically, Kraft cares way more about having his security people concentrate on stadium security and investigating threats than following their players around. And as fans we should all applaud them for that.
Prior to yesterday, there was no civil or criminal complaint. The Pats security team is not going to interview all of Brown's ex-girlfriends. And any character references may simply decided not to disclose what they felt was a dispute that had since been resolved. Beyond a basic background check, the Pats are not going to waste time chasing down rumors everything they sign a player, and prior to yesterday, all that existed were at best rumors.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Does the NFLPA have any incentive to cooperate with Goodell on this?
Do they have incentive to cooperate with him on anything?
The Commissioner has the power he has in this area because the players have long recognized that bad actors like Ben Roethlisberger and Pacman Jones need to be dealt with swiftly so they don’t put everyone’s livelihood at risk. I’m not expecting Goodell to step in and make this decision for the Pats based solely on what’s in the public record right now, but if more damning evidence emerges in the days ahead, I wouldn’t expect the NFLPA to make more than a token objection if Goodell decides that immediate action is necessary.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
5,757
Westwood MA
"Anyone have any questions about Miami?" Followed by a rash of reporters asking about Brown. Then BB walks out. The whole thing lasted about four minutes.
Whoever it was who asked "Don't you think the fans have a right to know?" should run down to the local fix it shop in Anytown USA and get that loose screw in his head tightened...….holy smokes.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,591
What kind of dystopic land do we live in now is that we have to assume guilt for any accusation? Have all the people who spout this "believe the women" nonsense stopped to think that if their mantra became widely followed, incentives for women would raidically shift in the other direction and the number of false accusations will soar?

Take all accusations seriously. Investigate them thoroughly. Respect women.

Never blindly believe anyone.
To continue on this line, the mantra of "believe all women" is, from what I can tell, largely in response to society reflexively choosing to "believe NO women" when these accusations surface. It doesn't take reading very many V&N threads on sexual assault stories to see the steady litany of "she's obviously lying" and "what a slut" and so on that comes, thankfully not from our fellow posters here, but definitely from general internet commentary and even media commentary. And it's a fact that, in the main, it is a very rare accusation that is made up.

However, those stats are for society at large. For accuseds who are non-famous, non-rich, and particularly where a prosecutor is bringing charges, I think society (not the legal system) ought to in general put the burden of proof on the accused from that point, and give accusers the benefit of the doubt. We ought to believe them, because far too many of them are disbelieved and then character-assassinated, and it's always the far easier path for them to just never pursue it or seek justice. In your Harvey Weinstein type cases, we've seen women voicing accusations publicly, but not filing suit to seek money (rather just to bring attention, and perhaps to testify in criminal proceedings), and I think they should probably start with the benefit of the doubt as well.

That said, when as here we're dealing with a rich and famous accused, and civil charges, I think the odds of a false (or exaggerated for extortionary purposes) accusation go way up. That's a very small fraction of cases, though an outsized fraction of public attention. I have no more information than anyone else in this thread, but I think it's entirely reasonable, and not anti-woman, to not reflexively believe her in this situation until the balance of publicly-available evidence tilts towards her interpretation of events. "We'll have to see" / "leave it up to the system" is not a knee-jerk response, and neither is a conclusion that he's an asshole.

But likewise, knee-jerk responses of "the Pats should cut him!" and "he's not worth it!" also seem misplaced to me. If he was worth the drama yesterday, I'd say he's worth it today - I don't think much has changed as a result of this filing. I'll take the opinion of the litigators here that it's by no means a slam-dunk filing, and don't see any reason his professional life should be affected while that process plays out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.