I agree with most of what you said, but the haters will ALWAYS find a way to discredit TB, BB, and the Patriots as a whole.
The decision stated that these issues were sufficiently briefed below for the court to rule. There was at least one question at oral argument, I think from Chin, regarding RG's possible motivations. I'm not surprised that the court didn't remand.
Just a quick note: the league approval of the Skins/Cows contracts was as to form, not as to cap implications. They were consistently told not to do specifically what they did, and were never given any assurances there wouldn't be a penalty for those contracts. I think the penalty they got was too harsh, but they are on very different factual grounds than Brady is.
No, I'm thinking within a few years they'll be an issue where he'd like Kraft's support and won't get it as easily as he did when he blatantly lied in the Ray Rice matter. Kraft stood by his man. I'm guessing that will be less likely in the future and I completely envision a scenario where Goodell fucks something up in the next 24 months. I don't think its a myth to hope that an issue arises in the future where Goodell would like Kraft's support and doesn't get it. I'm not sitting here thinking Kraft has a dart board with 12 numbers on it and is going to throw one to pick the month he fires Goodell. I wish that were true. But its not even my myth. I understand the realities here.
Agree.
Kraft is 1 of 31, and I would submit one of the weaker owners at this point. He's had his knees taken out by the league and he's just had to take it. I will say this, if I see one more photo of him playing nice with goodell, shit-eating smiles on their faces, I may vomit.
The owners are likely to need something from the players before the end of this decade, and I think the players will insist on getting some restrictions on Goodell's disciplinary authority in return. The Brady case helps the union PR-wise, as it's a lot easier to stand on principle for a guy like Brady than to argue for the due-process rights of guys like Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson, which is the union's main concern.
Do you think the players would rather have a fairer discipline process or more money? I kinda think they'd take the money.
What did Hunt lose for his transgressions? two third round picks? What did Kraft lose, for transgressions for which his organization and his coach were exonerated by the Wells report? A 1st, a 4th and $1MM. I'd say that Mr. Hunt received a spanking; Mr. Kraft, a beating.
3rd, 6th and 250K, plus another 100K to the coaches. Not same category as the Kraft punishment, but still unprecedented for that offense. Clark Hunt isn't walking around feeling like he got off easy in comparison to Kraft. He's specifically mentioned his punishment was unprecedented when compared to other tampering cases.
Influence? Perhaps with TV contracts, rules committees and the like. On matters of fair play and justice, not so much (don't mind me, I'm really fucking bitter right now).
So did most of the practitioners here. It was galactically stupid.Judge Parker saying that Brady destroying his phone "compromised the integrity of the proceeding"???
Do yourself a favor and never read or listen to Skip Bayless. He is paid millions of dollars to say things that generate controversy, regardless of their veracity. That is literally his job.
Did he state any reasons for why it would be heard en banc? They were reasons why the NFLPA might seek it, not why it would be granted.
Well done, Brandon. You are a true Patriot.
It was galactically stupid. However, while ill-advised, he was under no obligation at all to keep or to ever turn it over to Goodell under the NFL's rules, so it's pretty egregious for Chin to suggest it is of much relevance here. To use the logic of the majority opinion, if the NFL wanted to have the CBA require players to keep or turn over their phones as part of disciplinary processes it should have negotiated for that.
So hard to give up the NFL, but I can sure as hell give up a lot of the sponsoring products. There is zero doubt in my mind that a well organized boycott could have a real impact on Goodell and the league.
This myth is likely a motivating factor for this entire fucking mess. Kraft got used, got a big head, and then got taken down a peg.
We're a stats based community; the stats are awful from our standpoint. None other than Chief Judge Katzmann has written about the Second Circuit's "tradition" of deferring to panel determination. Judge Jacob's characterization was less positive -- he complained about the Court taking virtually no en banc cases.
Well, let's see. I use Verizon for FiOS and my cell phone, I drink a lot of lemon-lime Gatorade when I'm playing sports and use Campbell's Chunky Soups as emergency backup dinners. I appreciate the quality of Bose, the lack thereof of Busch Light, and the affordable consistency of Courtyard by Marriott. Rarely but crucially, I will eat a drive-thru McDonald's double cheeseburger in secret on my way home. Lastly, I'm certain I buy multiple Procter & Gamble products. How the hell do you even start to boycott them?
It's obvious that neither the players nor their representatives ever cared about the arbitration thing during the last negotiation. It seems everyone back then was willing to let the Commissioner exercise whatever judgement was required to protect the integrity of the game, particularly if it came down to cheating. It's not a position that 's difficult to understand.
If we want cooked. Peyton comes out of retirement for four games and does his friend a favor.
Arbitration is given substantial deference. CBA arbitration is basically substantial deference on steroids.
This is all so true
When Kensil roamed the sidelines during the AFC Championship game, taunting "we caught you fuckers this time. You're dead."
I think that it is utterly delusional to suggest that a boycott is plausible. But since we won't agree, I'll stop responding.
That's not the logic of the majority opinion. I don't think it makes sense to play whack a mole, but generally speaking, conceding the tribunal to opposing party in a bargain is a bad idea because that person fills in reasonable gaps. It's basically a super concession that controls many other issues.
