NFL announces deal with Walsh; Goodell meeting set for May 13 - Page 34 - New England Patriots Forums

PatriotsReign · 04-27-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okterrific

And by the way, we still don't know what happened between Moss and that woman.

We all now know it was "nothing". And I knew that from the moment I read the story.

My point is WAY too many members of this board just LOVE to gossip. I find that deeply disturbing. Some are as bad as the media in that they seem to want to guess what the truth is. We had close to 1,000 posts on the Moss non-incident without knowing what happened.

The same thing happened regarding Brady's "boot" picture taken in NY. My question is, "are we men or women?" Of course this is not directed at our female members, who by the way, seem to refrain from gossip.

Go figure!

PatriotsReign · 04-27-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okterrific

Either that or Grade A hush money. Who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

Unless you've got anything other than stupid open ended questions then (Please be quiet - edited). Here's a good one right on your level. Ever notice that Dog is God spelled backwards? Makes ya think huh?

Wait, sorry for that if that sounded like an insult. A wise man once said "there are no stupid questions....only stupid people that ask questions."

Someone should have given okterrific the age-old advice;

"It is better to remain silent & be thought a fool than to open one's mouth & remove all doubt!"

okterrific · 04-27-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

We all now know it was "nothing".

Interesting choice of quoatation marks.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 04-27-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanSince74

The bad news is that a "Defamation per se" proceeding, under common law, generally requires that the alleged slander meet one of the following criteria:

--It alleges something that is "injurious" to another's business or trade. Here we come back to defining "injurious" when one is dealing with an entitity that is in the public spotlight. What injuries, other than people saying foul and unfair things about them, has the Patriots organization suffered as a result of Spygate? We're big boys, we're supposed to be able to take this kind of thing and move on. Appeals courts at the Federal level have watered this down pretty significantly. The bottom line is that the Pats might prevail after a long and ugly proceeding, only to be awarded $1.00 by a jury.

Well, I dunno, but I think the fact that Goodell has said that if the story were true, it would likely subject the Pats to additional punishment could be seen as grounds that the allegations are themselves injurious.

FootballFanetic · 04-27-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSR

Oh stop...you've continually shown that you aren't here to "discuss" anything. A discussion involves a back and forth not just you stating your opinion and then running away when someone questions your logic. If you want to prove you are not a troll then just go back and answer the dozens of questions posed to you, no matter how much they destroy your points.

And as for you Goodell interview where he said the lawyers have new information please provide a link where he was quoted. Otherwise its just something made up by a proven troll.

Pretty tough to link to a radio report, no? (Please re-read my original post.) It was an interview with Goodell on 1050 ESPN radio in NY at about 6:50 last night from the draft. Believe me or not, makes no difference to me. He also said that everything he's done in this matter has been done with the best interests of the League in mind and sounded somewhat non-chalant about the whole thing.

PatriotsReign · 04-27-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FootballFanetic

Thanks for both answering my initial question and sticking up for me a bit in your prior post (the questions I pose on this topic as a non-Pats fan are far from popular here I've noticed, and can understand). I came here to discuss this matter because I find it interesting and who better to disuss this with than Pats fans. Call it trolling if they want, but I hope they notice that I don't say with certainty what will happen here--I don't know, nor do they, what the truth is on all this or how it will play out. I have my views on what the likelihood of certain things is based on the information at hand, but am not saying (like some here are in the other direction I've noticed) that "the Pats are definitely guilty, guilty, guilty here". It's just as likely that Walsh is a whack job with an axe to grind whose mouth overloaded his rear in an effort to see his name in lights and hurt the team that hurt him. That's all a very real possibility, but so is his having been the "dirty jobs" man for them coming home to roost. That's why I think that the lie detector point may turn out to be a potential way to resolve (or try to resolve) the nearly inevitable "he said, he said." We'll have to see.

On the Kraft point above--my apologies if I offended, but it was an honest question, as I had not seen that, nor did I see the usual televised concession speech, because I don't think Fox aired one for whatever reason. Of course, that doesn't mean Mr. Kraft didn't offer his congratulations, as your link pointed out (but also as I myself noted in my initial question).

Don't mean to rain on folks' parades here even more, but according to an interview with Goodell on ESPN radio here in NY tonight that I myself heard on the way out to dinner Walsh's lawyers have told him they have new information that he'll be interested in. What that is he didn't go into (for whatever reason, including he didn't know details about it most likely). I suspect this may get picked up in tomorrow's papers, but we'll see.

Fanetic, what you need to accept is that NOTHING Walsh "says" will result in any action. There will have to be absolute proof. So Walsh's lawyer saying Matt has info Goodell will interested in actually means nothing if he has no proof.

But of course YOU know this. And of course you know it's the truth. Words will mean absolutely nothing and a lie detector test will not be used. That's a ridiculous proposition.

But once again, you THINK fans like you deserve answers that will satisfy your questions. The fact is, fans like you deserve no answers at all. Goodell isn't worried about satisfying your curiousity. He made that clear when he destroyed the tapes.

Think of this to be like the way the U.S. government handles UFO & conspiracy information. The public doesn't need to know.

***PatsFanSince74*** · 04-27-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Well, I dunno, but I think the fact that Goodell has said that if the story were true, it would likely subject the Pats to additional punishment could be seen as grounds that the allegations are themselves injurious.

"injurious" for a company or institution in the public eye means either that the allegation interferes with or prohibits it from carrying on its business or that it causes the company or institution to suffer financial harm.

the pats are still playing football, so they are carrying on their business.

as for financial harm, there has been no loss of ticket revenues (in fact 98% of season ticket holders renewed at drastically higher prices), there has been no loss of TV revenue as these revenue are contractual and there has been no demonstrable or material loss of merchandising revenues that might not be attributed to exiting the Playoffs in a disappointing fashion two years in a row. in order to show financial harm vis a vis the value of the franchise, the Krafts would have to put it on sale and then show that the bids were lower than outside estimates of its value, which isn't in the cards.