PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Reiss: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh


Status
Not open for further replies.
I also find it interesting that BB not only is adamant about never taping walkthroughs when he was a HC but also never seeing it done as an assistant coach. That is a nice way of protecting people like Parcells from this mess.

People here want BB to throw everyone in the NFL under a bus. It's interesting that this statement does the opposite. BB loves the NFL and he loves his job. He isn't just going to trample the reps of a bunch of coaches in the fraternity who basically have nothing to do with this current mess. That's pretty cool.
 
Did walsh actually say or infer that he had a tape of the walkthrough??? or did he just say or infer he had tapes?? How did the existence of the walkthrough tape come about???...un named source??? It's unbelievable how reporters can just cite an "un named source" and report anything true or not.

As far as I know, the supposed existence of the walkthrough tape has just been rumored. No one has actually said they have that particular tape.
 
BB loves the NFL and he loves his job.

Another thing the media never mentions. Belichick has an amazing amount of respect for the game and its history. This is about Belichick railing against NFL operating procedures he didn't agree with and felt unfairly restricted his way of running a team. This is NOT about Belichick stomping all over the integrity of the game that has defined his life, as the media would like everyone to believe.
 
Another thing the media never mentions. Belichick has an amazing amount of respect for the game and its history. This is about Belichick railing against NFL operating procedures he didn't agree with and felt unfairly restricted his way of running a team. This is NOT about Belichick stomping all over the integrity of the game that has defined his life, as the media would like everyone to believe.

Great, great point. This man has lived and breathed football his whole life, his father was one of the most respected college coaches out there, but you'll never hear a word in the media of how BB has been taught by some greats of the game. How someone who chooses not to be gushy with the media gets portrayed as the worst thing to happen to football is beyond me.
 
Great, great point. This man has lived and breathed football his whole life, his father was one of the most respected college coaches out there, but you'll never hear a word in the media of how BB has been taught by some greats of the game. How someone who chooses not to be gushy with the media gets portrayed as the worst thing to happen to football is beyond me.
Belichick donated his and his father's large football book collection to the Naval Academy, as the article below said would be happening.

Steve Belichick began collecting books on football in the 1950s while scouting college football games. When traveling, Steve would always arrive in town early so he had time to find a local bookstore and see if he could make any new discoveries. Bill joined his father in collecting books in the late 1970s and helped supplement his father's collection.

The book collection is one of the largest of its kind, featuring over 400 books and several hundred more periodicals dating back to the 1890s and including such historical works as Amos Alonzo Stagg's Practical Thesis in Football, Walter Camp's American Football and Bob Zuppke's Football Techniques & Tactics.

http://navysports.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101206aaa.html
 
I also find it interesting that BB not only is adamant about never taping walkthroughs when he was a HC but also never seeing it done as an assistant coach. That is a nice way of protecting people like Parcells from this mess.

People here want BB to throw everyone in the NFL under a bus. It's interesting that this statement does the opposite. BB loves the NFL and he loves his job. He isn't just going to trample the reps of a bunch of coaches in the fraternity who basically have nothing to do with this current mess. That's pretty cool.

We are probably among the few to recognize this. I believe in other spheres this is called integrity.

Btw, am I wrong or has Polian not piled on re spygate?
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

If Walsh produces a tape I'll believe him. If he does not, I'll think he's the jerk that everyone around here thinks he is. I don't think he'd be making all this noise unless he has something.

Unless he's got nothing and just some "stories" he can tell and try to sell to the media for a few bucks.

SO, the fact that he's lied on his resume doesn't hold any water with you? I mean, I would think that would automatically raise questions about this guys veracity.

Instead of being a hater, why not get more facts and realize how much of a sleeze Matt Walsh is.
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

Belichick will step down or get canned. Mark it down.

Another Jet fan showing his lack of intelligence.
 
Really, all anyone needs to know about Matt Walsh is that he was offered protection under the provision that everything he told be the truth.

He declined the offer.

That pretty much says it all right there.
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

Florio, King, Dr Z, etc are playing the angle most of their readers will share, 31 other teams fans and the general sports public vs only Pats fans. We all know the media will spin this the way it will be more beneficial to them and try to string out the life of this story as much as possible. Don't worry about their point of view because that will only frustrate you.

The Pats are going about this the right way, they're not leaking info to the media but making their position known on-the-record.
 
I wonder if walsh's golf course bosses will ever read this article.
 
So if Walsh comes out with tapes all BB has to say is I never authorized it and nothing will happen. Walsh was acting on his own.
 
I also find it interesting that BB not only is adamant about never taping walkthroughs when he was a HC but also never seeing it done as an assistant coach. That is a nice way of protecting people like Parcells from this mess.

People here want BB to throw everyone in the NFL under a bus. It's interesting that this statement does the opposite. BB loves the NFL and he loves his job. He isn't just going to trample the reps of a bunch of coaches in the fraternity who basically have nothing to do with this current mess. That's pretty cool.

I think the reason they emphasized that he has never ordered videotaping of Patriots walkthroughs is that there were reports that the videographer (presumably Matt Walsh) taped Patriots walkthrough in the morning, stayed behind in the stadium and taped the Rams walkthrough later. It looks like, Belichick and Pioli think that Matt Walsh videotaped both walkthroughs on his own with the hope of some personal gain by selling the materials. This may be the obscure reference that Goodell made in one of his interviews when he stated they found "reverse evidence". Does any body remember exactly what Goodell said in that context?
 
So if Walsh comes out with tapes all BB has to say is I never authorized it and nothing will happen. Walsh was acting on his own.

If Walsh was going to come out with a tape that had ANYTHING on it, he'd have taken the indemnity package offered him by the NFL. He didn't because it didn't protect him from perjury.
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

Walsh's lawyer and Specter are out there crying about the provision in the NFL indemnity agreement that states Walsh must tell the truth.
That is a very significant fact if it is true. Do you have a source (link) for that statement? All I have heard is that Walsh's lawyer stated that the protections offered by the NFL so far are insufficient to protect Walsh. I am not questioning the validity of your statement; I just want to know where you got the information.

edit: followup: This is the most recent mention of the situation I found on Boston.com:

February 16th, 2008: "The lawyer for Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee who has hinted he has tapes that could prove damaging to the team, including one of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002, said his client will turn over those tapes to the NFL if the league will agree to indemnify Walsh as long as he tells the truth."

That's exactly the opposite of what you said. Again, I am not doubting what you said but would like to know where you saw it.
 
Last edited:
I think the reason they emphasized that he has never ordered videotaping of Patriots walkthroughs is that there were reports that the videographer (presumably Matt Walsh) taped Patriots walkthrough in the morning, stayed behind in the stadium and taped the Rams walkthrough later. It looks like, Belichick and Pioli think that Matt Walsh videotaped both walkthroughs on his own with the hope of some personal gain by selling the materials. This may be the obscure reference that Goodell made in one of his interviews when he stated they found "reverse evidence". Does any body remember exactly what Goodell said in that context?

I agree with this and I posted the same thing. I think Walsh did this on his own accord to simply advance his own career, which by all accounts was his #1 priority if the guy is recording Pioli's phone conversations.
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

That is a very significant fact if it is true. Do you have a source (link) for that statement? All I have heard is that Walsh's lawyer stated that the protections offered by the NFL so far are insufficient to protect Walsh. I am not questioning the validity of your statement; I just want to know where you got the information.

Promisedland, the only thing that the NFL's indemnity offer doesn't cover is perjury. That's been stated numerous times in numerous articles. So, its safe to say that Specter and Michael Levy want Walsh protected from perjury as well when they say that the indemnity offer doesn't go far enough.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that NO JUDGE will uphold an indemnity agreement that supposedly protects a person from perjury.

Promised, here is something from the same article you mentioned. Its clear that Gasper didn't proof-read what he wrote because he goes on further to say the following:

Chris Gasper said:
"Levy said the NFL's offer to Walsh leaves his client unprotected legally against unfounded or unproven allegations and would force him to turn over to the league the very materials he would need to fight such charges."

And farther down the article:
Chris Gasper said:
Levy said his proposal to the NFL also requires his client to tell the truth, although he didn't lay out what the consequences of being untruthful would be.

"Under the agreement we've proposed, Mr. Walsh is only protected if in good faith he tells the truth," said Levy. "That's what he will do."
 
Last edited:
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

Promisedland, the only thing that the NFL's indemnity offer doesn't cover is perjury. That's been stated numerous times in numerous articles. So, its safe to say that Specter and Michael Levy want Walsh protected from perjury as well when they say that the indemnity offer doesn't go far enough.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that NO JUDGE will uphold an indemnity agreement that supposedly protects a person from perjury.
I agree. After I posted my question I found this on espn.com; it contains the proposed indemnification text from the NFL and Walsh's attorney's response (with my emphasis):

Indemnification language

NFL counsel Jeffrey Pash offered the following proposed indemnification to Matt Walsh and his attorney:

". . . This will confirm that, subject only to the limited conditions set forth below, neither the National Football League, nor the New England Patriots, nor any of their affiliates will initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings against Mr. Walsh for the truthful disclosure to Senator Specter or his staff or to the League of facts of which Mr. Walsh may have become aware while employed by the Patriots. This commitment extends to the disclosure of factual information that might otherwise be deemed confidential or a trade secret. In return, you have confirmed that Mr. Walsh will share with the League office the same information that he shares with the Senator or his staff, and that he will do so at about the same time that he speaks with the Senator and/or his staff.

"The commitment is conditioned upon Mr. Walsh's promptly returning to the League Office, after he has been interviewed by Senator Specter or his staff, any and all documents or other items that he may have taken improperly from the Patriots during the period of his employment there, or which are otherwise the property of the Patriots, and his confirming, in writing, that all such documents or items have been returned. If Mr. Walsh's disclosures are truthful, the commitment not to initiate litigation or arbitration proceedings referred to above shall extend to the improper removal of any items that are returned."

Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, countered with the following language to protect his client:

"The National Football League and any and all of its affiliates (the "League"), on behalf of itself and the New England Patriots and any and all of its affiliates (the "Patriots"), agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Mr. Walsh harmless from and against all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, fines, expenses, deficiencies, taxes, and reasonable fees and expenses of counsel and agents, including but not limited to any costs incurred responding to any investigation, inquiry, or proceeding or in the course of enforcement of this agreement, which may be sustained by Mr. Walsh arising out of, related to or connected with, directly or indirectly, (i) the employment of Mr. Walsh by the Patriots and any actions undertaken by him in the course of his employment, (ii) the taking or retention by Mr. Walsh of any information, documents or other materials that may be deemed to belong to (or constitute or contain confidential information or trade secrets of) the League or the Patriots, or (iii) any disclosure by Mr. Walsh of any such information, documents or materials to any person or entity, including the alleged untruthfulness in that disclosure absent bad faith on the part of Mr. Walsh ("Claims"). The League and the Patriots also fully and finally release and forever discharge Mr. Walsh from any and all Claims that the League or the Patriots may now have, have ever had, or may have, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, related in any way to the matters described above. The League and the Patriots are aware that, under the law of certain jurisdictions, a release may not extend to certain claims that a person does not know or suspect exist at the time when the release is executed. To the greatest extent permissible, the League, on behalf of itself and the Patriots, expressly waives the benefit of those laws and acknowledges that it intends this release to extend to the full extent described. Neither the League nor the Patriots will institute, maintain, prosecute, or authorize to be commenced any action or other proceeding against Mr. Walsh either in law or equity based in whole or in part upon any of the foregoing."
 
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

That is a very significant fact if it is true. Do you have a source (link) for that statement? All I have heard is that Walsh's lawyer stated that the protections offered by the NFL so far are insufficient to protect Walsh. I am not questioning the validity of your statement; I just want to know where you got the information.

edit: followup: This is the most recent mention of the situation I found on Boston.com:

February 16th, 2008: "The lawyer for Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee who has hinted he has tapes that could prove damaging to the team, including one of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002, said his client will turn over those tapes to the NFL if the league will agree to indemnify Walsh as long as he tells the truth."

That's exactly the opposite of what you said. Again, I am not doubting what you said but would like to know where you saw it.

I don't have links (sorry) but I am referencing Specter's press conference where he stated something to the effect that Walsh was scared about the provision that required he tell the truth (explanation included references to how easy it would be for Pats to challenge anything as being a lie).

Also, the counter proposal by Walsh's lawyer for an indemnity agreement had no provision for telling the truth. If he was OK with that provision, why didn't he include it in the counter proposal?

Edit: you found the article I was referencing.
 
Last edited:
Re: BB and Pioli break silence over Walsh

the only thing that the NFL's indemnity offer doesn't cover is perjury.

It actually includes 2 other points that are more significant to Walsh than the "truth" provision:

1) He can only talk to Goodell and Specter
2) He has to turn over all materials

These may seem like insignificant details, and they are if your only motivation is to expose the truth. However, they are a serious buzz-kill if your motivation is to cash in on what you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots CB Marcellas Dial’s Conference Call with the New England Media
So Far, Patriots Wolf Playing It Smart Through Five Rounds
Wolf, Patriots Target Chemistry After Adding WR Baker
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots WR Javon Baker Conference Call
TRANSCRIPT: Layden Robinson Conference Call
MORSE: Did Rookie De-Facto GM Eliot Wolf Drop the Ball? – Players I Like On Day 3
MORSE: Patriots Day 2 Draft Opinions
Patriots Wallace “Extremely Confident” He Can Be Team’s Left Tackle
It’s Already Maye Day For The Patriots
Back
Top