- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 30,771
- Reaction score
- 38,023
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Why does Schefter write it as legal action? Isn't it a bit different than that...?
Of course, the problem is that the Patriots aren't a disinterested party. They suffer a direct impact if Brady is suspended. So I don't think it would hold any weight with the court. About time they finally did something though.
“The Patriots stand to lose their All-Pro quarterback for 25 percent of the upcoming regular season based on a severely flawed process,” team attorney Daniel L. Goldberg wrote. “But the impact of the majority opinion is not limited to professional football. It threatens to undermine vital principles governing arbitration of collective bargaining agreements throughout the national economy.”
“The panel majority’s opinion ignored or excused these fatal failings,” Patriots attorneys wrote about the decision. “It endorsed the outcome of a highly manipulated and fundamentally unfair process designed and used by the Commissioner to reach and justify a predetermined outcome in violation of the CBA and this Court’s precedents.”
The d-bags in this forum who have slandered Bob Kraft's good name can all eat crow and issue their aplologies now.
As long as Kraft doesn't get called to be Roger's character witness lol, this looks good.Credit where credit's due, I did not expect Kraft/the Patriots to actually do anything on Brady's behalf. I'm happy to be wrong on this one.
It may be well written, but they don't even have to read it. Did Chin saying the evidence was "compelling if not overwhelming" seem like he even read the Blecker amicus brief?It'd be cool if, instead of sticking to our guns or getting in a bunch of 'time to eat crow kraft-bashing ****heads' we could at least agree that this seems, so far, to be a pretty well-written and forceful argument on Brady's behalf.
Adding another voice to dispute the science is not needed, since the science is unfortunately a sidelight by now, but..
When a member of the NFL really rips into the NFL for it procedures regarding the CBA that are in question, you'd have to think that this will have impact.
It may be well written, but they don't even have to read it. Did Chin saying the evidence was "compelling if not overwhelming" seem like he even read the Blecker amicus brief?
This is far too little, far too late, for me. It seems timed to make it seem like they are doing something, but only when they know it's too late to actually do any good. This way, when the suspension is upheld, and we all know it will be, they can claim that they tried.
Observation:
The very first thing this amicus brief mentions is that this is an issue of "exceptional importance" which, conveniently, happens to be one of the criteria for judges to decide whether or not to render an en banc ruling.
They make sure to frame this not as a discussion of deflated balls, but "the extent to which settled precedent and fundamental fairness operate as a check on the broad authority of arbitrators." ... stating that it ... "threatens to undermine vital principles governing arbitration of collective bargaining agreements throughout the national economy."
So they certainly cannot be accused of understating things!