Florio: Source Says that Wells Report takings so long because investigation turned to the NFL

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Sadly, I can't seem to find the official NFL statement on "spygate" online anywhere but I specifically recall that part because it was key. The Belichick quote confirms that it was not just a figment of my imagination.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the IN THAT GAME part.

We're speculating what Goodell's state of mind was when he brought the hammer down. The way I see it it had to be one of the following.

Click to expand...

No I quoted his words.

Scenario 1- Belichick admits he disregarded what he thought was a BS rule and Goodell brings the hammer down on him for being an arrogant *******. Possible but it seems a bit over the top.

Scenario 2- Goodell was convinced it was cheating and was hell bent on sticking it to the Pats. Apparently, a more rational individual got hold of Goodell, explained that this doesn't give anyone an edge, and convinced him to mention that in the statement. This resulted in a fuddled statement with a clear disconnect between the ruling, the penalty, and all the "fire and brimstone" rhetoric.

Scenario 2 seems more likely to me and, if true, demonstrates that Goodell is ill-suited for these kind of decisions.

Click to expand...

Scenario 3. Goodell is an idiot who listened to people complaining that it was cheating, didn't take the time to find out that it was a common practice and was legal if done from a different location, and felt it was 'a calculated effort to avoid a rule designed to promote fair play and even competition'. Therefore he (incorrectly) decided the team cheated to gain an unfair advantage and punished based upon that poor ruling.

I mean you cannot read his words and gather anything other than he considered it unfair and a competitive advantage that was inappropriate.
You want to use BBs comment to say that Goodell lied in his own statement yet you delete 'in that game'.

AndyJohnson said:

Once again, I am explaining the conclusion that the penalty was based upon, and I disagree with the conclusion.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you are trying to convince me of, there's no need to once again me.

You were not quoted because I disagreed with anything you are saying. Spygate is dumb. I agree that the penalty had everything to do with Goodell flexing his power, making a statement to the League and perhaps feeling disrespected like the insecure little schoolgirl (no offense to schoolgirls) he is.

AndyJohnson said:

But he didn't say that. BB said that Goodell told him it gave them no competitive advantage IN THAT GAME. No one ever claimed it did, but a lot of people claimed it gave them a competitive advantage in repeat matchups. Goodell clearly felt so.
I mean really, read Goddell's words, you can't tell me he didn't consider this cheating.


But he didn't concede that. He told BB he agreed that none was obtained IN THAT GAME. A 'calculated attempt to avoid rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition' is hardly rhetoric or conceding nothing serious happened.
Again, Goodells assessment of the issue was wrong, but when his conclusion is the team made a calculated effort to avoid rules that promote fair play and honest competition the penalty is very consistent with that (incorrect) finding.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I remember Goodell saying that, or something very much like it.

rochrist said:

I'm pretty sure I remember Goodell saying that, or something very much like it.

Click to expand...

No, I posted Goodells comments which clearly said it was a calculated attempt to break a rule which was there to keep play and competition fair.
BB said that Goodell told him he agreed it did not create a competitive advantage in that game, which is obvious because they confiscated it.

I'm done on this topic. Somehow disagreeing with the conspiracy theory that the league wants to screw the Patriots for doing nothing wrong and will reorganize their tax status so they can commit an agregious act against one of their members and must prevent Congress from stepping in, has turned into an uncomfortable Spygate discussion.
I'm out.

AndyJohnson said:

You are ignoring the IN THAT GAME part.

Click to expand...

You're overlooking that (1) it was the 1st game of the regular season and (2) the memo (not rule) that Patriots violated just went into effect that season.

In light of the above, OF COURSE, it was just that one game.

Scenario 3. Goodell is an idiot who listened to people complaining that it was cheating, didn't take the time to find out that it was a common practice and was legal if done from a different location, and felt it was 'a calculated effort to avoid a rule designed to promote fair play and even competition'. Therefore he (incorrectly) decided the team cheated to gain an unfair advantage and punished based upon that poor ruling.

I mean you cannot read his words and gather anything other than he considered it unfair and a competitive advantage that was inappropriate.
You want to use BBs comment to say that Goodell lied in his own statement yet you delete 'in that game'.[/QUOTE]

Well that sort of fall under scenario #2. Goodell didn't understand the rule, was too lazy to learn, and/or wanted to stick it to the Pats or some combination. What difference does it really make? Under any scenario, it wasn't a sound exercise of discretion.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

You're overlooking that (1) it was the 1st game of the regular season and (2) the memo (not rule) that Patriots violated just went into effect that season.

In light of the above, OF COURSE, it was just that one game.

Click to expand...

That is not correct.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Scenario 3. Goodell is an idiot who listened to people complaining that it was cheating, didn't take the time to find out that it was a common practice and was legal if done from a different location, and felt it was 'a calculated effort to avoid a rule designed to promote fair play and even competition'. Therefore he (incorrectly) decided the team cheated to gain an unfair advantage and punished based upon that poor ruling.

I mean you cannot read his words and gather anything other than he considered it unfair and a competitive advantage that was inappropriate.
You want to use BBs comment to say that Goodell lied in his own statement yet you delete 'in that game'.

Click to expand...

Well that sort of fall under scenario #2. Goodell didn't understand the rule, was too lazy to learn, and/or wanted to stick it to the Pats or some combination. What difference does it really make? Under any scenario, it wasn't a sound exercise of discretion.[/QUOTE]

I'm only discussing it from the point of view of it being used to support the conspiracy theory that the league will punish the Patriots harshly even if it believes they did nothing wrong.

AndyJohnson said:

Well that sort of fall under scenario #2. Goodell didn't understand the rule, was too lazy to learn, and/or wanted to stick it to the Pats or some combination. What difference does it really make? Under any scenario, it wasn't a sound exercise of discretion.

Click to expand...

I'm only discussing it from the point of view of it being used to support the conspiracy theory that the league will punish the Patriots harshly even if it believes they did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well, the other possibility is he puts more weight on public opinion than he really should. If that's the case, he may punish the Patriots simply to pander to the lowest common denominator. This is the problem with a weak leader with a history of bad judgment, you simply expect him to do something arbitrary/stupid and you begin to subscribe to a victim mentality as a coping mechanism.

For the purposes of getting this discussion back to the thread topic, which is NOT Spygate, please keep it to the current Wells investigation.

Thanks.

shmessy said:

For the purposes of getting this discussion back to the thread topic, which is NOT Spygate, please keep it to the current Wells investigation.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Damn it! I was just about to throw snow plows on the field to clear away a kicking area investigations that into the mix.

Thanks shmessy for being the downer at the party.

Rob0729 said:

I still think when


Damn it! I was just about to throw snow plows on the field to clear away a kicking area investigations that into the mix.

Thanks shmessy for being the downer at the party.

Click to expand...

I almost called a waaaaahmbulance!

AndyJohnson said:

Because of the AntiTrust exemption.
But that's not what you are saying. You are implying they gave up the tax classification so that they could stick it to the Patriots unfairly and no one could complain. Can we agree that is simply not supported by the facts?

Click to expand...

One thought I did have, didn't have anything to do with "sticking it to the Patriots" - but I could see the potential for Goodell to know what's in the Wells report, and if the report said things that undermined the trust in HIS office, one could see the potential for actions to be taken given the anti-trust and non-profit status (with actions to revoke them)

In that frame of mind, Goodel would be wise to take pre-emptive action such as letting go of non-profit status (and as a multi-billion entity I wonder how much corporate tax/payout the government is now going to get?

Goodell just effectively made the government a partner rather than adversary given the amount of tax revenue the government can receive from this give-back (payoff?) I'd say that makes it less likely for the government to take a heavy handed role should the Wells report raise questions about how tight a ship Roger is or isn't running.

This seems plausible to me, as odd as it sounds, because quite a few sources DO think the Wells report will shed negative light on the NFL head office itself.

JoeSixPat said:

In that frame of mind, Goodel would be wise to take pre-emptive action such as letting go of non-profit status (and as a multi-billion entity I wonder how much corporate tax/payout the government is now going to get?

Click to expand...

Near zero.

The NFL is not a "multi-billion entity". The NFL is a (now) formerly not-for-profit corporation whose virtually sole income is $10mil per team per year membership dues and had a $9mil profit in 2012 and losses of tens of millions of dollars the two years before that.

The billions you read about are paid to the teams which are all fully-taxable businesses (with the probable exception of the Packers).

Someone may have posted this already, but Goodell stated today that he will NOT be issuing any apologies either way.

So much for the "we'll be getting public apologies" angle. While appropriate, it seemed too much like wishful thinking for me.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england...-to-apologize-to-robert-kraft-for-deflategate

supafly said:

Someone may have posted this already, but Goodell stated today that he will NOT be issuing any apologies either way.

So much for the "we'll be getting public apologies" angle. While appropriate, it seemed too much like wishful thinking for me.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england...-to-apologize-to-robert-kraft-for-deflategate

Click to expand...

How does he know this f he has not seen the report which may expose misconduct in the NFL's office.

supafly said:

Someone may have posted this already, but Goodell stated today that he will NOT be issuing any apologies either way.

So much for the "we'll be getting public apologies" angle. While appropriate, it seemed too much like wishful thinking for me.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england...-to-apologize-to-robert-kraft-for-deflategate

Click to expand...

He purposely recast the question to 'not apologizing for investigating' when Kraft clearly demanded an apology for THE WAY THE NFL HANDLED the first two weeks of sieve-like leaks of the investigation from inside the headquarters.

Chatham nailed it:

Matt Chatham ✔ @chatham58
Is #RogerGoodell dumb or just playing dumb? He knows Kraft apology isn't 4 investigating. It's his office leaking like a diaper-less infant



If Goodell wants to publicly defend the public leaks from his office, then he should go ahead and look even more idiotic.

shmessy said:

He purposely recast the question to 'not apologizing for investigating' when Kraft clearly demanded an apology for THE WAY THE NFL HANDLED the first two weeks of sieve-like leaks of the investigation from inside the headquarters.

Chatham nailed it:

Matt Chatham ✔ @chatham58
Is #RogerGoodell dumb or just playing dumb? He knows Kraft apology isn't 4 investigating. It's his office leaking like a diaper-less infant



If Goodell wants to publicly defend the public leaks from his office, then he should go ahead and look even more idiotic.

Click to expand...

I agree. No doubt that the apology should be for casting the team in a negative light via leaks, but since he'll never admit to doing anything of the sort, we shouldn't be surprised. To be honest, I'm actually surprised that some here felt that it was even a possibility in the first place. It's almost as if they felt that Goodell is a fair and just human being.

supafly said:

I agree. No doubt that the apology should be for casting the team in a negative light via leaks, but since he'll never admit to doing anything of the sort, we shouldn't be surprised. To be honest, I'm actually surprised that some here felt that it was even a possibility in the first place. It's almost as if they felt that Goodell is a fair and just human being.

Click to expand...

Wells may slam the NFL himself. That would be great