Per SI: Spygate deal not close

[ALP]

you wont see this on espn

Despite recent reports that indicated the NFL is closing in on a deal to speak with Matt Walsh, the former Patriots video assistant who allegedly has proof of the Patriots illegally spying, a league spokesperson yesterday said that isn't the case. There have been reports stating that an indemnity agreement between the NFL and Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, who's seeking protection for his client from any lawsuits, was imminent, thus bringing Walsh forward to speak about what he has in his possession in the way of proof of Patriots' spy games. The two sides, reported to be close to getting together, were not close to any formal agreement as of yesterday.

 

[DEVILSADVOCATE]

Where/who did you hear this from?

 

[blackglass3]

It's in the Truth and Rumors part of SI.

This is the second or third time it has happened like this. ESPN says a deal is coming, everyone remembers it is going on and starts spewing the "cheaters" crap, and then another sports site (SI, CBS Sportsline, Fox Sports) reports that nothing has changed. I swear to God it is just ESPN making up rumors to keep it in the news.

 

[Clonamery]

SI. Under Truths & Rumors. Taken from a snippet in the New York Post (of all places).

Don Banks has his own take as ell.

 

[Pats726]

Might never get to hear him at all..which WOULD be the worst for the Pats..the guy wishes to have the league pay for his lawyers..THAT is pure BS..the league should cut off megotiatons...make him pay for it all. I wonfer WHO is paying teh bills here..who put up teh retainer..there is a story here of some Patriot hater who is footing teh bill for it all and THAT story might be quite large..

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

It will be nice to finally not hear the names of guys like Matt Walsh and or Spygate ever again...

 

[Bertil]

It will be nice to finally not hear the names of guys like Matt Walsh and or Spygate ever again...

Fat chance. Once that scumbag finagles his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, he'll be everywhere.

 

[fgssand]

Might never get to hear him at all..which WOULD be the worst for the Pats..the guy wishes to have the league pay for his lawyers..THAT is pure BS..the league should cut off megotiatons...make him pay for it all. I wonfer WHO is paying teh bills here..who put up teh retainer..there is a story here of some Patriot hater who is footing teh bill for it all and THAT story might be quite large..

Spector & Comcast??

 

[AStack75]

Now forgive me for living in a Patriots-less cave since the Super Bowl, but what type of lawsuits is Matt Walsh trying to get immunity from?

 

[Watson's IQ]

Fat chance. Once that scumbag finagles his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, he'll be everywhere.

Sadly, you've hit the nail on the head here. I get the sense that what this guy wants more than anything is attention (aka, a book deal). I suspect part of the hang up is that the NFL believes once he gets his protection that he's going to be all over the networks defaming the Patriots, exposing himself to more legal trouble if it should turn out he's lying. I think that's the Catch-22 for the league. If he does have something substantial, they of course want to hear it. But if he doesn't, and they've given him their protection to hear what he has to say, than it's on them when he's all over the place spreading untrue filth about the Patriots.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Now I think I understand where that brouhaha over the wordings comes in (this was a few weeks ago). The NFL wanted to give him indemnity if he "told the truth," while he wanted indemnity for (paraphrasing) anything he had a good-faith reason to believe to be true.

Again, the fact that the Pats aren't hiding behind a confidentiality agreement, in my mind, speaks volumes.

 

[PatsDeb]

Now forgive me for living in a Patriots-less cave since the Super Bowl, but what type of lawsuits is Matt Walsh trying to get immunity from?

There are two different issues - immunity and indemnity. Immunity is freedom from prosecution for a crime and can't even be offered by the NFL. It is the government or prosecutor who offers you immunity from prosecution in exchange for your testimony or cooperation, usually against another. bigger criminal they want to nail. I don't see how the NFL can offer this unless they get the prosecutors in Foxboro MA (whom I assume would be the governmental agency prosecuting Matt Walsh for crimes like theft of Patriots property or recording other persons without their permission) to agree to it. If there are potential federal crimes they would have to get the US attorney to agree too. The Pats can push for prosecution at the local level if he did steal tapes and illegally record conversations. That could be very expensive for someone who now lives in Hawaii.

Indemnity is an agreement to pay for your defense costs and any damages awarded in a civil suit against you. Essentially, Matt Walsh is looking for the NFL to become his insurance company if the Patriots (or any persons connected with them, such as BB or Scott Pioli) sue him for damages for anything he says, does or turns over. For instance, if he has said that he has a tape of the Rams walkthrough (or even implied it and not corrected it), and does not and the Pats (or BB or Pioli) have been damaged by that (i.e. loss of reputation, actual economic damages, etc.) they could sue him for things like, libel, slander, negligent or intentional misrepresentation, etc., etc. It could get very expensive for Mr. Walsh, or the NFL, if the Pats decide to go that route. It would also pit Roger Goodell against Bob Kraft. Not a very good scenario for either one.

This could all be taken care of if the Pats were involved and agreed not to push for prosecution of Walsh on anything and not to sue Walsh for whatever he does. However, the Pats don't seem to be involved. They are waiting on the sidelines, it appears. If I were them, when the time was right, I would call Goodell and say if you want us to play ball you agree that no more penalties be handed out no matter what this kid has (which we still think is nothing). Whatever he has is at least six years old and didn't happen on your watch, so let it go. Let him and Specter have their moment in the sun and then we can get back to football.

Goodell doesn't seem that smart, however.

 

[BPF]

SI. Under Truths & Rumors. Taken from a snippet in the New York Post (of all places).

Don Banks has his own take as ell.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/03/11/snap.judgments/index.html?eref=T1

Some interesting exerpts from Banks story.

The good news is that one way or another, the end appears to be in sight.

The rather murky saga called Spygate has now stretched on for six months and a day since it surfaced Sept. 10. A half-year is probably more than enough shelf life for a story that, strangely enough, has at times been vastly over-dramatized in terms of its significance and vastly underestimated in terms of its staying power.

That tape might or might not have ever existed. I don't get the sense that the NFL thinks Walsh has it, not from what league spokesman Greg Aiello, after more than a month of the league's negotiations with Walsh's attorneys, told the Boston Globe this past weekend. "We have not been able to find evidence that there is a walk-through tape," he said, "but we are interested in hearing what Matt Walsh has to share with us.''

The NFL desperately doesn't want to again appear to be in the dark about any facet of Spygate, as was the case when it acknowledged that Walsh had not been interviewed in the initial investigation last September. So if the league felt there was even a remote chance that Walsh has such a damaging tape, it doesn't stand to reason that Aiello would be offering on-the-record comments that cast doubt on its existence, setting up the NFL for a potential blindsiding.

The other factor that leads me to believe that no 2002 Super Bowl walk-through tape is forthcoming from Walsh is the vehemence of the denial that came from Patriots coach Bill Belichick last month in the Globe. You can believe Belichick is the evil genius if you care to, but that doesn't make him dumb. To come out with blanket statements saying he has never even seen or filmed another team's walk-through practice strikes me as an incredibly short-sighted and foolhardy move if you're even minutely worried Walsh has the very proof needed to nail you to the wall.

Soon enough it appears we'll know what Walsh has to say and what his evidence is. The mystery that has loomed over this story will be revealed. If Walsh largely has just tapes showing the Patriots videotaped the signals of opposing coaches in regular-season games from 2000-02, in which they missed the playoffs twice in three years, that's in line with what Belichick has already acknowledged to Goodell. That will elicit no further punishment from the league, and will serve as the likely final headline in this whole messy affair. Even Sen. Arlen Specter might be muted.

 

[BPF]

you wont see this on espn

"Despite recent reports that indicated the NFL is closing in on a deal to speak with Matt Walsh, the former Patriots video assistant who allegedly has proof of the Patriots illegally spying, a league spokesperson yesterday said that isn't the case. There have been reports stating that an indemnity agreement between the NFL and Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, who's seeking protection for his client from any lawsuits, was imminent, thus bringing Walsh forward to speak about what he has in his possession in the way of proof of Patriots' spy games. The two sides, reported to be close to getting together, were not close to any formal agreement as of yesterday."

I think an agreement is in place but nothing finalized. I also read that Walsh's Atty Levy has a full caseload and is going on 2 weeks vacation. So probably no deal done till the end of this month, beginning of next.

 

[upstater1]

Listen, one of the best ways for the Patriots to get ahead on this is to sue the guy and win.

There's something final about that. And to sue the Herald as well.

I seriously doubt that the Patriots would give up the #1 weapon they have to clear the name of the franchise. It would be really stupid for them to do that.

The only thing the NFL should idemnify him for is for breaking any confidentiality agreement (if there is one) and for stealing patriots' property.

But if he has made false claims against the Patriots, then NO WAY should the Patriots give up the right to come after him in a court of law. A few years ago Rashard Casey, the QB at PSU, was accused of hitting a cop and he saw his life go down the drain. By the time all was said and done, he actually sued that cop and won a judgement in a court of law. So then he got to tell the real story, and people believed him.

 

[BelichickFan]

Listen, one of the best ways for the Patriots to get ahead on this is to sue the guy and win.

There's something final about that. And to sue the Herald as well.

I seriously doubt that the Patriots would give up the #1 weapon they have to clear the name of the franchise. It would be really stupid for them to do that.

The only thing the NFL should idemnify him for is for breaking any confidentiality agreement (if there is one) and for stealing patriots' property.

But if he has made false claims against the Patriots, then NO WAY should the Patriots give up the right to come after him in a court of law.

Absolutely. That's their ace in the hole. As we found out in September, Goodall and the NFL can do what they want for whatever reason they want as it relates to in league punishments. If for some reason Goodall is talked into further action, the ace the Patriots can play is taking Walsh to court and getting it out on public record under oath. If they believe the facts are on their side there is no reason to give that up when the NFL can act and sway public opinion with no facts whatsoever.

 

[DGameguy]

Spector & Comcast??

Actually, yes, probably. Florio on PFT has been advancing this theory for weeks. Levy works for a high-priced (read: out of Walsh's price range) law firm operating out of D.C. When asked about who is footing the money for his billable hours, Levy ignores the questions/declines to comment. He and Specter also have some connection.

 

[pao]

There are two different issues - immunity and indemnity. Immunity is freedom from prosecution for a crime and can't even be offered by the NFL. It is the government or prosecutor who offers you immunity from prosecution in exchange for your testimony or cooperation, usually against another. bigger criminal they want to nail. I don't see how the NFL can offer this unless they get the prosecutors in Foxboro MA (whom I assume would be the governmental agency prosecuting Matt Walsh for crimes like theft of Patriots property or recording other persons without their permission) to agree to it. If there are potential federal crimes they would have to get the US attorney to agree too. The Pats can push for prosecution at the local level if he did steal tapes and illegally record conversations. That could be very expensive for someone who now lives in Hawaii.

Indemnity is an agreement to pay for your defense costs and any damages awarded in a civil suit against you. Essentially, Matt Walsh is looking for the NFL to become his insurance company if the Patriots (or any persons connected with them, such as BB or Scott Pioli) sue him for damages for anything he says, does or turns over. For instance, if he has said that he has a tape of the Rams walkthrough (or even implied it and not corrected it), and does not and the Pats (or BB or Pioli) have been damaged by that (i.e. loss of reputation, actual economic damages, etc.) they could sue him for things like, libel, slander, negligent or intentional misrepresentation, etc., etc. It could get very expensive for Mr. Walsh, or the NFL, if the Pats decide to go that route. It would also pit Roger Goodell against Bob Kraft. Not a very good scenario for either one.

Excellent explanation.

This could all be taken care of if the Pats were involved and agreed not to push for prosecution of Walsh on anything and not to sue Walsh for whatever he does. However, the Pats don't seem to be involved. They are waiting on the sidelines, it appears.

I agree, unless they know he has something. This is the only thing that bothers me about this whole thing. If they knew that Walsh could have nothing then what are they worried about? Tell him to bring it on. It doesn't even have to be public. Simply have him talk to Goodell with Patriot reps and an objective third party (an arbitrator or something) and find out what he's got (which sounds like nothing). Then the NFL can say we investigated and found nothing new. End of story.

If I were them, when the time was right, I would call Goodell and say if you want us to play ball you agree that no more penalties be handed out no matter what this kid has (which we still think is nothing). Whatever he has is at least six years old and didn't happen on your watch, so let it go. Let him and Specter have their moment in the sun and then we can get back to football.

This will never, EVER happen. Look at the crap Goodell took for destroying the tapes. Give them immunity if Walsh has something new on them? That would be like giving immunity to OJ if Kato Kaelin agreed to testify against him. They'd ride him out on a rail!


pao

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/03/11/snap.judgments/index.html?eref=T1

Some interesting exerpts from Banks story.

Even Sen. Arlen Specter might be muted.

Say what you will, but it sounds like Banks has big dreams here....

 

[mangenious]

Even I want this crap to end already, at first I was happy that the supposed cheaters were getting their due but now this is just becoming a hypocritical joke. Who the hell even came up with the term spygate any way?