Tom Curran: "Brady will Rag Doll the NFL's Case!"

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Vilma filed suit after the signing of the current CBA. So the CBA does not block Brady from filing a defamation suit.

It did. The LA court basically said, "Vilma, your defamation claim sucks but, regardless of that, we can't help you anyway because the CBA ties our hands. If it's any consolation, we think Goodell is a jackass and geaux Saints!"

My concern is that this will be precedent for a decision in Brady's case saying , "Tom, even if you have the most compelling defamation case in the world, the CBA ties our hands and we can't help you. If it's any consolation, we concur that Goodell is a jackass."

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I heard an interesting take on the Brady appeal the other day that made a lot of sense to me about how it will end. Sorry but I forget who said it. It goes like this.

Goodell will hear the appeal and drop the absurd penalty a game or two. Brady and the NFLPA will refuse the deal and take it to court where the league is something like 1-33. In court Brady gets cleared to play game one (sorry Matt Flynn). Brady gets his redemption. The Pats get their player. (which is ultimately good for the league) Goodell gets to say to the other owners, I did what I could. I didn't cave to the Pats, we took that #1 and 4 draft picks and best of all, ruined their reputation.

Thus in the end the haters will get most of what they were after, and the Pats get a crumb.

Way ahead of ourselves again, but if this goes in the direction Curran suggests it will, the result will be the erosion or outright abrogation of Goodell's authority. At that point, almost anything can happen.

 

[Rob0729]

It did. The LA court basically said, "Vilma, your defamation claim sucks but, regardless of that, we can't help you anyway because the CBA ties our hands. If it's any consolation, we think Goodell is a jackass and geaux Saints!"

My concern is that this will be precedent for a decision in Brady's case saying , "Tom, even if you have the most compelling defamation case in the world, the CBA ties our hands and we can't help you. If it's any consolation, we concur that Goodell is a jackass."

I meant the CBA didn't block him from filing a defamation claim in general. His suit was dismissed because of the specific way he filed it was in conflict with the CBA. It said attacking one section of the CBA alone was not enough. If he was able to attack multiple sections of the CBA (assuming he had a valid claim), he could have gone through with the case.

And your second paragraph is different. Vilma basically argued that his punishment without being able to face his accusers was why he was defamed. That will not be Brady's case.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course you can. In some circumstances (like duress), the bargain may be unenforceable but people bargain away their legal rights all the time.

Perhaps they do, but that bargain does not hold up in court.
A CBA done during a player lockout would certainly be a case where the court could rule duress, and would be a very easy argument that their legal rights being taken away is an egregious overstepping of the CBA.
No court case is 100%, but if the NFLPA files suit against the league for Brady, that clause preventinghim from seeking redress for being disallowed to work under his union employment would be laughed out of court.
If it wouldn't why is everyone saying he will sue?

 

[IllegalContact]

we're getting, way, way, way ahead of ourselves. I had thought that as well, but I think that Kensil and others know where ALL Goodell's bodies are buried, so he can't throw them under the bus. If they go down, they will go down together.

if this goes to the end, somebody's going to crash........at the end of the day, however, it is all on goodell's watch, so it will likely come back to him since he was likely the one who hired kensil.

the most likely ending will be where brady is exonerated but fined for not fully complying with all the requests for the investigation............now if Brady is out for FULL exoneration, then you'll see an attack on those involved in any way from AFCC game time to the report by Mortensen......somebody has to be held responsible for the incorrect information that caused the ensuing investigation.

I see it this way............the league leaked it's own false story (11 of 12 balls more than 2lbs under) that created the need for an investigation.......and as the crow flies in the NFL front office, the Pats are worth taking down provided most of them are former jets employees.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh yes it does.

Could you show me any cases where the court found someone was unable to sue because they waived that right in an employment contract?

Think of the ramifications.
I wont hire you unless you agree you will never sue me. Therefore I will now commit every labor violation known to mankind and you just have to sit there and take it.

 

[Ring 6]

It did. The LA court basically said, "Vilma, your defamation claim sucks but, regardless of that, we can't help you anyway because the CBA ties our hands. If it's any consolation, we think Goodell is a jackass and geaux Saints!"

My concern is that this will be precedent for a decision in Brady's case saying , "Tom, even if you have the most compelling defamation case in the world, the CBA ties our hands and we can't help you. If it's any consolation, we concur that Goodell is a jackass."

That just isnt what happened. The case not dismissed because of a CBA agreement to not sue.
If was tossed because Vilma sued Goodell individually rather than as the Commissioner, so his legal standing was wrong.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

That just isnt what happened. The case not dismissed because of a CBA agreement to not sue.
If was tossed because Vilma sued Goodell individually rather than as the Commissioner, so his legal standing was wrong.

I'll post the money shot again:

"Vilma’s argument that the statements were made in Goodellʹs individual capacity is unpersuasive as
Goodell was sued as Commissioner of the NFL AND all of the statements attributed to
Goodell were made in connection with the NFLʹs investigation of the pay‐per‐performance/bounty allegations. Therefore, Vilma’s claims are preempted and must be dismissed. "(emphasis added.)

My reading of that is that it didn't matter whether Goodell was sued individually or sued as an NFL agent, what mattered is Goodell's statements were part of a league investigation covered by the CBA. My guess is that the attorneys chose to frame it as Goodell acting as an individual to try to do an "end around" on the CBA preemption and the court didn't buy it.

Brady and the players union may have other legal recourse (based on breach of duty of "good faith"-type theories in CBA enforcement) but I'm not a labor law guy so I can't really speak to it. I thought the defamation aspect had merit but it looks like the CBA keeps that claim out of court.

 

[IllegalContact]

the term 'Fraud' comes to mind..........this could represent criminal activity by the league against Tom Brady............forget the CBA........this one could actually break a federal law

“The Wells report’s statistical analysis cannot be replicated by performing the analysis as described in the report,”

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The Kraft Group remains a privately owned, family-operated company with a strong entrepreneurial streak. We are nimble, responsive and fiercely independent. The Kraft Group is run by family members and trusted staff that share one thing in common: an uncommon commitment to customer focus.

The company is traded on the stock exchange, so would therefore be owned by the stockholders. Bob Kraft, or the Kraft family, probably owns the majority of the stock, but I don't know this for sure.

NOTE: Kraft is not the CEO of Kraft Foods, but of the Kraft Group, of which Kraft foods is a part."

I know you're just quoting some AltaVisa thing, but that's totally wrong. The Kraft that is traded publicly is the Kraft Foods Group which has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Kraft's Kraft Group. Kraft Foods is absolutely NOT a part of Bob Kraft's Kraft Group, nor does the Kraft family own a majority of Kraft Foods Group stock.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

1. The NFL leaked incorrect PSI numbers.
2. The NFL knew the leaked numbers were wrong.
3. The Patriots were forbidden by the NFL to correct the information (can someone verify that).

If #3 above is correct, how is that not willful and malicious?

IIRC the Wells report and/or wellsreportcontext.com verifies #3.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I know you're just quoting some AltaVisa thing, but that's totally wrong. The Kraft that is traded publicly is the Kraft Foods Group which has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Kraft's Kraft Group. Kraft Foods is absolutely NOT a part of Bob Kraft's Kraft Group, nor does the Kraft family own a majority of Kraft Foods Group stock.

Bob invests in WitchKraft Motorsports.
http://www.witchkraftracing.com/

He is also the inventor of Hydrokraft
http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Hydraulics/ProductsbyName/Hydrokraft/index.htm

Ben Volin wrote about it so it must be true.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I'm still a couple pages from the end, so excuse my (potentially) repeated questions.

it seems Brady would have enough to get a defamation case started. If the NFL is concerned about integrity and it's image, can they afford the publicity of the case going public? I'm sure there are more than enough warts that can be uncovered (and wouldn't it be great if there was some things leaked that might not be relevant to the case).

Could Brady include Mortenson in his defamation? i know he's protected by being a reporter, but don't they have to make sure their information is accurate? Would it be possible to squeeze Mort this way to expose his sources? (I doubt it's possible but worth going after him as his report really s=ignited the s#@tstorm and caused all the negativity against Brady/Patriots).

 

[smurfalarm]

the term 'Fraud' comes to mind..........this could represent criminal activity by the league against Tom Brady............forget the CBA........this one could actually break a federal law

That sounds more like really severe incompetence than deliberate misrepresentation. Exponent could have accurately described the methodology they actually used for their regression analysis or obscured the methodology instead of describing it in enough detail for AEI to surface the mathematical error. Considering the national sports media does not appear to be reporting on an outright mathematical error, it's pretty obvious that Exponent would not have come under any sort of serious scrutiny for using an unusual technique for statistical analysis or for not adequately describing their methodology in sufficient detail to verify the analysis. It probably wouldn't get through Nature's peer review process, but it would obviously get past ESPN, and that's what counts.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be completely surprised if they tuned the methodology to get the numbers Wells needed to most easily fit the conclusion he wanted, and then forgot to reflect those changes in the methodology description in their paper. Nothing about that would technically be outright fraud, even if it is really unethical. I would be interested to see previous drafts of the Exponent report to see how the methodology and numbers change between early and later drafts.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Could Brady include Mortenson in his defamation? i know he's protected by being a reporter, but don't they have to make sure their information is accurate? Would it be possible to squeeze Mort this way to expose his sources? (I doubt it's possible but worth going after him as his report really s=ignited the s#@tstorm and caused all the negativity against Brady/Patriots).

Short answer: no. Mortensen never made any firm declarations. He just stated what his sources were alleging. That's why articles you read of this nature tend to include a ton of "allegedly"s.

 

[patsfan13]

I'm still a couple pages from the end, so excuse my (potentially) repeated questions.

it seems Brady would have enough to get a defamation case started. If the NFL is concerned about integrity and it's image, can they afford the publicity of the case going public? I'm sure there are more than enough warts that can be uncovered (and wouldn't it be great if there was some things leaked that might not be relevant to the case).

Could Brady include Mortenson in his defamation? i know he's protected by being a reporter, but don't they have to make sure their information is accurate? Would it be possible to squeeze Mort this way to expose his sources? (I doubt it's possible but worth going after him as his report really s=ignited the s#@tstorm and caused all the negativity against Brady/Patriots).

Not Mortenson, but if his source knew of the real measurements they would be guilty of defamation.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Short answer: no. Mortensen never made any firm declarations. He just stated what his sources were alleging. That's why articles you read of this nature tend to include a ton of "allegedly"s.

I'm just wondering if there's a way to get Mortenson's source. Or a way to get after his phone/text records to see who may have communicated the information.

 

[Deus Irae]

Could Brady include Mortenson in his defamation?

Unless you can prove that Mortensen made up his "source", you've really got nothing there. Mortensen got burned by his source.

 

[patsfan13]

I'm just wondering if there's a way to get Mortenson's source. Or a way to get after his phone/text records to see who may have communicated the information.

You do discovery to see if people like Kensil were Mortenson's source.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'm just wondering if there's a way to get Mortenson's source.

Or if there even was one. Actually, there probably was for dumb ol' Mort. But one of the problems we have with a free press is that journalists with an axe to grind can say/write anything and say that a "source" told them, even if they're just making it up, and in most cases there's nothing that can be done.

But don't worry, that only happens with unethical journalists.