NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[Big Bucks]

Did I miss something? Has he filed a defamation suit? I mean, you can't "drop" a suit if it hasn't been filed.

lol.. you calling me out because I wrote 'the' and not 'a' at the start.

Yes I know there isn't one.

 

[Ivan]

I really can't believe America could be this stupid.

.

Do you live in Antarctica?

 

[Gronkowski123]

He didn't say there was overwhelming evidence, he said 'compelling, if not overwhelming', which has been interpreted by people who actually heard the audio as 'compelling but not overwhelming'. So don't jump off the bridge yet.

overwhelming evidence made everyone jump off the bridge.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Florio said maybe kesselr shouldve let an appellate lawyer who is far away from the case emotionally do the talking instead of himself. I guess kessler was caught off guard with the line of questioning which seemed to stem from the briefs the nfl submitted. Regardless, chin saying there was overwhelming evidence was a bombshell no one expected to hear. Was absurd.

Yep, that's why the Appeal is usually argued by another lawyer.

Chin, I believe, said "compelling if/but (depending on the source) not overwhelming." There are two ways to hear that. But, even if Kessler heard it in the worst possible way, it was his job not to react emotionally and, for the money he is paid, it was certainly not his job to be "caught off guard" by any line of questioning...he only had six billable months to prepare for those few minutes.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

lol.. you calling me out because I wrote 'the' and not 'a' at the start.

Yes I know there isn't one.

It wasn't personal to you and I hoped you knew that no suit had been filed, but so many people out here act as though Brady will/should/must file such a suit that I couldn't resist. It was just too easy. A hundred lashes with a wet noodle for me!

 

[OhExaulted1]

Um, Article 46 has been a part of the NFL for a while. The thing is, other commissioners didn't use it like Goodell is using it. It's supposed to be for punishments for conduct not covered specifically by other language in the CBA.

I'm not whining about Kraft, but this is a spurious argument. The "Article 46" disciplinary powers of the commissioner existed under a different name long before the new CBA, and they were never a focus of the negotiations because no commissioner (including Goodell himself) had previously chosen to abuse those powers so the NFLPA had no reason to believe they would be abused in the future. The narrative that the NFLPA buckled to the owners by agreeing to grant the commissioner sweeping new powers that they knew he would abuse has very little factual basis.

Commissioner’s power under Article 46 has been present since the first CBA

I'm well aware this has been a provision since the beginning. You see the problem is we now have a commissioner who's decided that part of the CBA gives him carte blanche power. How many times before and now after the CBA was signed has the NFLPA complained about this particular commissioner "making it up as he goes along"?

My point is the players and the NFLPA all knew that this commissioner would abuse his powers at some point. What exactly prompted Goodell to recuse himself from the Saints players appeal and not do so in Brady's case?

The players and their union buckled on this topic for the "sake of the many" just as Kraft did for the "sake of the 32".
Commissioner’s power under Article 46 has been present since the first CBA

Similar, then, to the Personal Conduct Policy, the Commissioner’s judge-jury-executioner power predated the 2011 negotiations. The questions four years ago were: (1) whether the Commissioner would have given up the power to impose discipline and to review the decision; and (2) whether it made sense to make a concession that would have affected all players for the sake of securing rights that, as a practical matter, impact only a handful per year.

“The NFL Commissioner does have authority granted by the CBA, but he does not have the right to make up whatever rules he wants,” the NFLPA told PFT via email on Sunday. “Whenever the Commissioner has inflated his rights in the CBA, we have always been there with the needle.”

This is where De Smith is wrong. He does have that right, and the NFLPA and the players they represent let this scumbag keep those powers. They caved and now Brady is staring down the barrell of a 4-game suspension because they all went gutless when it came down to the money. They sold their principles to the highest dollar at the detriment of the few but for the good of the many. Sound familiar?

Cowards.

 

[grux]

I think that's exactly what happened. Clement exploited the fact that the judges wouldn't be familiar with the facts and lied and misrepresented them to the court. The only way the Brady side can rebut this is through a letter to the court outlining the lies Clement told and backing them with the appeal transcript, and by going public and slamming the lies by the league throughout this matter. The Patriots have a number of areas they can go after and they should hammer the league's with them. From the lies about Brady's testimony to the science and the repeated misrepresentations about Brady as ringleader of a conspiracy that never happened it's time for the Patriots to use the Wells Report In Context and make it a public lynching of the league office. And although I have been really skeptical about Brady filing a defamation suit I think the lies that the NFL just proffered to the court of appeals demands a response and a defamation suit may be the best way for him to go public with his side.

I would be surprised if Kraft does anything other than to provide lip service to the fans. Hopefully he will surprise me. I do hope Brady files a defamation suit and crushes the NFL.

 

[OhExaulted1]

I really can't believe America could be this stupid.

Not everyone, but were getting there:

 

[Ivan]

lol.. you calling me out because I wrote 'the' and not 'a' at the start.

Yes I know there isn't one.

No chance he would drop the defamation suit. Basically I believe that suit is not just for him but for the whole Patriots nation. I think I'd be just as pissed if he dropped it as I am pissed with Kraft. No way he drops it in some deal. If the reason is there is no way of putting forward such a case then that is different.

Lmao, you are calling 74 out for what you claimed was a typo when in truth you made the claim repeatedly that he would have to "drop" the suit. You should have simply acknowledged you were mistaken, instead of trying to blame him for your mistake.

 

[SVN]

Yep, that's why the Appeal is usually argued by another lawyer.

Chin, I believe, said "compelling if/but (depending on the source) not overwhelming." There are two ways to hear that. But, even if Kessler heard it in the worst possible way, it was his job not to react emotionally and, for the money he is paid, it was certainly not his job to be "caught off guard" by any line of questioning...he only had six billable months to prepare for those few minutes.

I think he said "if" not overwhelming. "But" makes it different ,dont think he said so.

 

[Ivan]

I would be surprised if Kraft does anything other than to provide lip service to the fans. Hopefully he will surprise me. I do hope Brady files a defamation suit and crushes the NFL.

Yep. I agree that it's doubtful, I was suggesting its what they should do not what they will do. Lying to the court of appeals really caught me off guard when it shouldn't have, by now I should be cynical enough to realize that ethics aren't a factor when it comes to the " justice" system.

 

[upstater1]

If you want cynicism, here you go: what better way for labor-leaning judges to burnish their bonafides than ruling against labor in a case that tries to preserve the labor-rights of a quasi-billionaire on behalf of an organization representing a bunch of millionaires?

Think of the rhetoric we hear when the players are locked out/go on strike. The working man versus champagne swiggers. Unions over management. These are millionaires, even billionaires.

 

[Jackson 2]

He didn't say there was overwhelming evidence, he said 'compelling, if not overwhelming', which has been interpreted by people who actually heard the audio as 'compelling but not overwhelming'. So don't jump off the bridge yet.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but, to me, "compelling, if not overwhelming" (which Chin said) is more damning to Brady than "compelling, but not overwhelming.). I interpret what he said as "compelling, or perhaps overwhelming."

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but, to me, "compelling, if not overwhelming" (which Chin said) is more damning to Brady than "compelling, but not overwhelming.). I interpret what he said as "compelling, or perhaps overwhelming."

Chin is just giving Kessler a hard time with that. He could be a jets fan trying to get a rise out of Kessler or something.

 

[Gronkowski123]

what about bermans ruling being described as " bulletproof "???

all of the legal experts are going to be wrong.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think he said "if" not overwhelming. "But" makes it different ,dont think he said so.

All depends on where he put the emphasis:
"Compelling if not overwhelming" implies one thing.
"Compelling if not overwhelming" implies another.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

what about bermans ruling being described as " bulletproof "???

all of the legal experts are going to be wrong.

Wrong by saying it's bulletproof and gets overturned? Or saying it will get overturned and it doesn't.
I still don't think it gets overturned but that's JMHO. The mediots are wrong a lot so I don't put much stock on what they say. I still don't think it gets overturned.

 

[SVN]

Tulane Sports Law Program Director Gabe Feldman Calls In to The RE Show & talks Deflategate – 3/4/16

 

[Big Bucks]

It wasn't personal to you and I hoped you knew that no suit had been filed, but so many people out here act as though Brady will/should/must file such a suit that I couldn't resist. It was just too easy. A hundred lashes with a wet noodle for me!

Quality, nice to see you got the funny side of my reaction to your post. Thankyou.

Lmao, you are calling 74 out for what you claimed was a typo when in truth you made the claim repeatedly that he would have to "drop" the suit. You should have simply acknowledged you were mistaken, instead of trying to blame him for your mistake.

lol

I'm not calling him out at all, just cannot believe he took the time to correct me considering the subject matter. Every man, dog and his lover knows there isn't a defamation suit in play, it was a clear typo. And yes, unlike the majority I do admit my mistakes on this forum.

 

[Brewskies]

What?

Did you read the entire sentence? Non Pats fans