TB Suspension: Cheater free to play again
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
There were rumors that Goodell wanted to suspend Brady and Belichick for the Super Bowl when the whole nonsense broke open. The league would have no problem suspending Brady for playoff game.
Given this whole thing is absolute bullshit and any games served by Brady is unfair bullshit, I feel pretty comfortable saying missing a playoff game would be unfair. Could happen, and yeah eyes wide open and stuff, but obviously 100% unfair.
Im 100% supportive of Brady appealing this even if it involves a risk of missed playoff games FWIW.
Most likely case is Brady serving a suspension a non-zero chance of ruining a title contending season in September. Bummer, and every system of justice failed here, but is what it is.
Why are you 100% supportive of that? I'm not. His chance of victory is enormously slim. And if he loses, he's fucking his team over. If he wants to go down fighting with the ship seeking vindication, let him continue the case while serving the suspension.
Any chance Goodell, his power, and related ability to achieve an erection, confirmed/restored, for once does the decent, reasonable thing and immediately reduces to an appropriate penalty for an equipment offense, like a large fine and/or 1 game suspension? Thereby providing further disincentive for Brady/NFLPA to pursue with SCOTUS? In the interest of putting this insanity to bed once and for all, any chance Brady would accept that, having fought the good fight. And let Goodell's over reaching disciplinary power be fought out in the CBA?
Im operating under the assumption that he's not guilty. He's done enough for this team and its fans over the last 15 years that if he feels its important to fight this, I support it. If he ends up suspended for a Super Bowl, so be it, I'll live with the farce.
Sorry, but I think that is nonsensical. He fought. He lost. I don't know how throwing a tantrum while your team watches the playoffs could be important.
The wettest of wet dreams is Brady serves the 4, the case is scheduled to be heard by the SC,Brady comes back for game 5, the Pats under Brady win the SB, and then in June '17 the SC reverses the 2nd circuit, and remands to Berman's ruling.
And Goodell gets fired.
So throw the Hail Ruth, but give JG 1st team reps.
And Goodell gets fired.
So throw the Hail Ruth, but give JG 1st team reps.
Im comfortable leaving that decision up to Tom Brady and support whatever actions he takes in this matter.
I don't care if he misses a playoff game. The league ran his name through the mud, had a bullshit report and appeal. If you're innocent of something why the hell would you ever back down. I'm fairly confident Brady isn't Bonds or Clemens. He knows he's innocent why would he not take it as far as he can.
Meh, I'll grant that the Goodell part is a major reach. But there was reporting and comments from D.Smith not long ago regarding Brady's willingness to settle this. But I'll concede it's probably folly to continue to try and look at this from a perspective of what decent, reasonable people might/should do. Guess I'll never fully wrap my head around how far down the tracks this idiocy has gone.
Me too.
Interesting question to me is whether TB decides on his own, or coordinates with the team on this.
And if the latter, beware of unintended consequences. I'd probably choose to sit the first 4 games, which would provide a very clear path between now and October.
But you're absolutely right that the season could effectively be over by the end of Sept if JG performs poorly.
This really is the key summary of this entire chain of events.
Rich emotional infants tired of losing, hold grudge and exercise their revenge demons with nonsensical witch hunt (in a game that ended 45-7 when the supposedly 'good' balls used in a second half where NE outscored Indy 28-0 by running it down their throat). Except this time the league office, many (possibly most) NFL fans and all media who have broadcast deals with the league are in lock step to assume, aid and abet all the worst aspects about the incident and are all too happy to oblige this puerile tantrum.
I don't know what TB intends to do but if you hire Ted O, one would think you're willing and intending to go all the way to SCOTUS.
This. I hate this as much as everyone else. But if this suspension happens in November, December, or even January people will realize that it would've been better to do it earlier. 3 home games in 4 helps soften the blow.
Any result other than 0-4 would not "end the season". 1-3 even is ok in the AFC East.
Success is the best revenge. They'll weather the suspension and have a rested Tom Brady for the last 12 games and playoffs. Nothing would chafe these fuckers more than another NEP championship. Risking a playoff game is madness. He's 39 and his performance could fall off a cliff at any moment.
If Tom knows he's innocent, I hope he keeps fighting. And I don't care if he misses next year's Super Bowl to do so. He's earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants here.
Mike Florio's take on why the case must be taken to the Supreme Court.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/supreme-court-appeal-is-a-necessity-for-the-nflpa/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/supreme-court-appeal-is-a-necessity-for-the-nflpa/
Does it ever get tiring beingSoSh's Joe Btfsplk? The worst likely outcome of a four game suspension in September will be a 2-2 or 1-3 start that's a speedbump on a trip to yet another AFC East title and playoff run.
I would like the team to forfeit the first four games or even the season. I doubt NBC/CBS would like that.
"Brady and the NFLPA nevertheless face long odds at this point. But they lose nothing by proceeding...."
Er, okay, chief.
WBV, I hear what you are saying but it seems like the appellate/stay decision is not only related to what is best for the Pats. Meaning I don't know whether they think "union interests" or "Brady interests" first, and how those things interrelate.
The approach thus far from the NFLPA/Brady has been balls to the walls, i.e., exhaust every avenue. Dropping it or doing something more nuanced would be a departure.
I'm not arguing that taking a more nuanced approach would not be in the Pats' best interests. i just don't know if that's the lens they are using or whether they will think in those terms.
The approach thus far from the NFLPA/Brady has been balls to the walls, i.e., exhaust every avenue. Dropping it or doing something more nuanced would be a departure.
I'm not arguing that taking a more nuanced approach would not be in the Pats' best interests. i just don't know if that's the lens they are using or whether they will think in those terms.
Unlikely. The Court has a conference calendared for Sept. 26, and then three conferences in Oct. But it would be very easy to extend this beyond Sept. 26 even if a cert petition were filed tomorrow. If NFL requests extension to oppose a petition, it will get it.
Regarding the idea that RG would suspend Tom in the playoffs if he contjnued to appeal and lost: What about the money?
Would sponsors and advertisers be up in arms about not having Tom Brady on the field for the playoff games? Even a slight concern of revenue loss might get the big advertisers to ouch Goodell towards 'he can serve at the start of the next season'.
(Probably not though)
Would sponsors and advertisers be up in arms about not having Tom Brady on the field for the playoff games? Even a slight concern of revenue loss might get the big advertisers to ouch Goodell towards 'he can serve at the start of the next season'.
(Probably not though)
Sorry to intrude where only lawyers are supposed to tread, but I've got a question for the learned folks in our midst.
If Brady appeals to the Supreme Court but also serves the suspension - and then wins at SCOTUS - does he have grounds for a very large lawsuit against the league? And if so, is this the sort of thing that might settle more easily if the NFL offered money plus RG's head on a platter?
If Brady appeals to the Supreme Court but also serves the suspension - and then wins at SCOTUS - does he have grounds for a very large lawsuit against the league? And if so, is this the sort of thing that might settle more easily if the NFL offered money plus RG's head on a platter?
Thanks DCM
If the Team Brady gets their motion of cert in 90 days, (10/13) and then the NFL gets an extension, logistically, whats the latest the SC would schedule to hear (or deny to hear) a case on their current year calendar?
The idea being that a beleaguered Tom Brady on the field would draw a bigger audience than Jimmy G. If the sponsors think that the backup QB would result in fewer viewers, or that TB would boost viewers, that's potentially meaningful to them and to the (32 owners of) the league.
This isn't a given, obviously. Maybe the fact that TB isn't playjng would be a big draw anyway.
Edit: more simply: RG would reschedule the suspension of it served his interests, meaning the interests of the owners. The interests of the owners are tied to the interests of the networks. The interests of the networks are tied to the interest of the sponsors.
So I guess it would be the networks that would apply pressure on RG if they saw the potential for a + or - effect on viewership.
Why? I mean, what are you asking here? It could very easily extend past the Super Bowl. But the NFL really holds all the cards. They can get multiple extensions. (I have a response due tomorrow on a petition that was filed at the end of December.)
Briefing would need to be completed roughly in February 2017 for the case to have a chance to be heard and decided before the end of the 2016-17 term.
But things happen often that delay the resolution of cert petitions.
It will be interesting to see if they seek a stay. If serving the suspension doesn't moot the case -- and there is some suggestion from a couple of months ago that it wouldn't -- then I think a stay will be hard to get.
The why is obviously the NFL schedule, and whether serving the 4 games susoension in games 1-4, is preferable to serving it in games 13-16, or carrying it into the post-season, or not serving it at all. I was asking given the court calendar (I assume they take time off at the traditional holidays) does the NFL have to be careful for asking for an extension that could potentially put the suspension into the '17-18 season if the case is decided in June '17.
Does it have to be careful? Uh, I guess. The Supreme Court can "relist" a case a couple (or many) times for another conference after it considers it. Especially if the league seeks one or more extensions, the case could easily extend past the end of the playoffs. (Remember also, it only matters if Brady receives a stay.)
But "careful"? I mean, Roger Goodell isn't going to lose any Super Bowls. A pound of flesh is a pound of flesh.
But "careful"? I mean, Roger Goodell isn't going to lose any Super Bowls. A pound of flesh is a pound of flesh.
Did he even make a claim for money damages in the district court? Was that even his claim to make? Was he even a party? I haven't paid much attention to that part of the case.
Even if it doesn't moot the case, it also possibly makes it less certworthy at least atmospherically if he has served the suspension, though that won't be an argument for a stay.
The claim was for vacatur of the arbitral award. The arbitral award included a loss of pay.
If that's still on the table, then I agree it wouldn't make the appeal moot. (I would guess it wouldn't be moot anyway. If a union member is suspended with pay and serves the suspension while the appeal is pending, my guess is that labor law permits the union to continue to pursue the appeal. But I'm guessing.)
In any case, if there's no danger that serving the suspension would deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it's hard to see a very strong stay motion here, or to imagine the court granting one.
If he did get a stay, though, it would seem he has some control over the timing. He could always withdraw his request for a stay or ask that it be dissolved, although I suppose the NFL could oppose it once it has been granted, though it's hard to imagine the Court continuing to keep a stay in place that the petitioner or putative petition doesn't want. For example, if he got a stay and then was hurt in training camp so that he'd likely miss a couple of games anyway, I suppose he could at that point seek to dissolve the stay. Or if extension and the like seemed to put the thing on track for denial of cert in late December, etc.
Adrian Peterson had served his sentence, and there was never a claim of mootness. As far as the effect on cert-worthiness, hell, look at the recently decided Fisher II case! (it seems unworthy though)
Yes, the union retains a concrete and particularized injury in an arbitrator's improper interpretation of its CBA.
Bears repeating. Everyone knew months ago that the Second Circuit almost never grants rehearing. This is going all the way.
Disagree with the first part of your final sentence. Brady would suffer clearly irreparable harm if he serves the suspension and it's later vacated. And the league will have a hard time arguing actual harm if the suspension is delayed. It could easily be granted for those reasons. The bigger problem is that the Court is only supposed to grant stays if there is a reasonable chance of success on the merits.
If they knew the Second Circuit wasn't going to grant rehearing and that they would petition for cert in any event, they would have done so initially, so as to take missing mid or late season games out of play.
Unless their goal is to stall until after the 2016 season. I know the lawyers here don't think that's possible, but maybe Olsen has some tricks up his sleeve.
Olsen not being hired after the Berman decision was a massive mistake. Appealing to SCOTUS makes sense, even if the likelhiood of success is slim to none.
Now, if TB12 cares to, he could fire up the "defamation" case against the NFL and Goodell for publicly lying about his testimony under oath where a foundation for the Award of a 4 game suspension was partially based on Brady's failure to admit that he talked about the ball underinflation issue with Jastremski. As we all know, that was a bald face lie (or gross negligence). I understand that the defamation case is not happening, but give me my 5 minutes of mastabatory fantasy of having Goodell and the NFL having to turn over all emails, etc., related to this farce.
Now, if TB12 cares to, he could fire up the "defamation" case against the NFL and Goodell for publicly lying about his testimony under oath where a foundation for the Award of a 4 game suspension was partially based on Brady's failure to admit that he talked about the ball underinflation issue with Jastremski. As we all know, that was a bald face lie (or gross negligence). I understand that the defamation case is not happening, but give me my 5 minutes of mastabatory fantasy of having Goodell and the NFL having to turn over all emails, etc., related to this farce.