To that end, Goodell said the league’s lawyers are in the process of granting legal indemnification to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, which would allow him to speak freely of his years in New England without the threat of legal action.
i'm not a lawyer, but as far as i know, the league could only indemnify him against penalties that the league could impose. the league could not indemnify him against legal charges brought by the state or federal government nor could it indemnify him against breaches of his contract with the Patriots. So, I don't know what this is all about, unless the league is agreeing to hold walsh harmless in the event that the patriots sue him under that contract.
i'm not a lawyer, but as far as i know, the league could only indemnify him against penalties that the league could impose. the league could not indemnify him against legal charges brought by the state or federal government nor could it indemnify him against breaches of his contract with the Patriots. So, I don't know what this is all about, unless the league is agreeing to hold walsh harmless in the event that the patriots sue him under that contract.
i'm not a lawyer, but as far as i know, the league could only indemnify him against penalties that the league could impose. the league could not indemnify him against legal charges brought by the state or federal government nor could it indemnify him against breaches of his contract with the Patriots. So, I don't know what this is all about, unless the league is agreeing to hold walsh harmless in the event that the patriots sue him under that contract.
I am confident Goodall wants it to go away. I suspect this is to give Walsh and whatever other Patriot haters are out there less amunition for excuses like "Walsh couldn't give all information he had because he was scared of being sued" or whatever. Make him as free as possible to say what he can, then say that he provided no useful information.
you're right to be confused. the only way it makes sense is if the league is promising to pay any penalties he incurs by breaching his contract with the patriots. otherwise, it's nuts.
I am confident Goodall wants it to go away. I suspect this is to give Walsh and whatever other Patriot haters are out there less amunition for excuses like "Walsh couldn't give all information he had because he was scared of being sued" or whatever. Make him as free as possible to say what he can, then say that he provided no useful information.
Agreed. Last time I checked, the Pats are 1/32 of the NFL. If the NFL gives Walsh legal protection, I would doubt the Pats would then be able to sue him. Let Walsh say whatever he wants and then let Belichick deny it. Let Walsh provide whatever tapes he has and let Belichick say he had nothing to do with them. And the world goes right on a-spinnin'...
Agreed. Last time I checked, the Pats are 1/32 of the NFL. If the NFL gives Walsh legal protection, I would doubt the Pats would then be able to sue him. Let Walsh say whatever he wants and then let Belichick deny it. Let Walsh provide whatever tapes he has and let Belichick say he had nothing to do with them. And the world goes right on a-spinnin'...
I don't see how the Patriots come out ahead in that scenario you described. Believe it or not, BB (and the Patriots) don't have a lot of credibility with the media or fans right now, so something tells me that if Walsh says something and BB denies it, people aren't going to say "Oh well, BB denied it, let's move along". Giving this guy credence and a voice is bad news for the Patriots, even if everything he says is bogus and he has no proof.
I don't see how the Patriots come out ahead in that scenario you described. Believe it or not, BB (and the Patriots) don't have a lot of credibility with the media or fans right now, so something tells me that if Walsh says something and BB denies it, people aren't going to say "Oh well, BB denied it, let's move along". Giving this guy credence and a voice is bad news for the Patriots, even if everything he says is bogus and he has no proof.
Sadly, yes. That's become pretty common knowledge/perception around here, but that is 100% not the angle that you see the mainstream media taking with it.
I don't expect any legal hits to come from Walsh, but the PR hit could be immense, even if he has "nothing"
I don't see how the Patriots come out ahead in that scenario you described. Believe it or not, BB (and the Patriots) don't have a lot of credibility with the media or fans right now, so something tells me that if Walsh says something and BB denies it, people aren't going to say "Oh well, BB denied it, let's move along". Giving this guy credence and a voice is bad news for the Patriots, even if everything he says is bogus and he has no proof.
the whole story is walsh and the tape. if there is no tape, where is walsh's credibility ? he's already lied about taping the walk through, now he's just a disgruntled employee. if he says the pats tape things, well we know the whole league is taping various things continually.
disgruntled because he didn't like the unfair advantage these tactics were giving the Pats? How did he make his way to Hawaii?? LOL, Kraft gave him a bunch of money to keep his trap shut, but he's too giddy to keep quiet forever.
the whole story is walsh and the tape. if there is no tape, where is walsh's credibility ? he's already lied about taping the walk through, now he's just a disgruntled employee. if he says the pats tape things, well we know the whole league is taping various things continually.
I just don't think there's going to be a PR win from this that doesn't follow "and he was never heard from again". Sure, if the commish meets with him behind closed doors and comes back with "he has absolutely nothing of substance" than that's fine. But that's not how a lot of people are going to see it if the story is anything other than that.
As I said, I don't see any discipline coming, but it can't help their image (not that it's particularly strong now anyways)
disgruntled because he didn't like the unfair advantage these tactics were giving the Pats? How did he make his way to Hawaii?? LOL, Kraft gave him a bunch of money to keep his trap shut, but he's too giddy to keep quiet forever.
"How did C'est La Vie become such an idiot? LOL, his mother dropped him on his head when he was a baby." See, I can speculate with absolutely no basis too! Let's all try!
Why the hell would he be disgruntled about that? This guy doesn't really seem like that scrupulous, especially since he implies it was him doing most of the taping anyways. If he's disgruntled, it's because he was shown the door, which makes him no different than any other disgruntled employee.
"How did C'est La Vie become such an idiot? LOL, his mother dropped him on his head when he was a baby." See, I can speculate with absolutely no basis too! Let's all try!
Why the hell would he be disgruntled about that? This guy doesn't really seem like that scrupulous, especially since he implies it was him doing most of the taping anyways. If he's disgruntled, it's because he was shown the door, which makes him no different than any other disgruntled employee.
disgruntled because he didn't like the unfair advantage these tactics were giving the Pats? How did he make his way to Hawaii?? LOL, Kraft gave him a bunch of money to keep his trap shut, but he's too giddy to keep quiet forever.
No, idiot, disgruntled BECAUSE THE PATRIOTS FIRED HIM!!! What does his being in Hawaii have to do with anything, and who other than yourself has suggested that Kraft gave him money to keep his mouth shut about anything? Be gone, troll.
disgruntled because he didn't like the unfair advantage these tactics were giving the Pats? How did he make his way to Hawaii?? LOL, Kraft gave him a bunch of money to keep his trap shut, but he's too giddy to keep quiet forever.
He made his way to Hawaii by lying on his resume...
When he got canned here the only football job he could land was in NFLE, and that lasted a season. Then he bounced around a couple of NE golf courses (where he probably told some tales too that Tomase has since heard) before heading 6000 miles west of whatever happened in his past apart from the Patriots that has yet to be revealed...Troll
What's the matter, nothing to talk about on the Colts board but which Manning is really the better playoff QB?
Which is more plausible? A guy who's bounced around from job to job, lied on his resume, etc being disgruntled over being fired, or the same guy being disgruntled because the Patriots "made him do bad stuff and then paid him off to be quiet."
Sure, it's also possible he's disgruntled because Tom Brady pisses in his cereal every morning, but I think if it's okay with you I'm going to go with the explanation that makes the most logical sense
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
