I can have no way of knowing without knowing their strategy.
The Wells report is a joke. A first year lawyer could shred it. If the case was just going to be all about beating the Wells report, and only the Wells report, the Patriots would have won in a matter of hours.
The Wells report is pure garbage for whatever proposition it is offered to support. That is not really the legal question I was asking. In law school and afterwards, you want factual definition to the legal problem. I wasn't suggesting the report was valuable to the NFL. It may be to the Patriots if they were to go forward.
Not sure what your area of practice is in law, but the Davis win was predicated on Rule 4.3 of Article IV,
specific to stadium relocations and the requirements therefor. The claim was antitrust. The Ninth Circuit essentially affirmed what the Supreme Court recently decided once and for all in
American Needle (NFL not a single entity). It assessed the reasonableness of the territorial restrain in the bylaws, and affirmed the finding that it was unreasonable under the facts and thereby violated the antitrust laws.
The Constitution and Bylaws have changed since 1978 (not exactly the same issue, as the NFL has learned some lessons since then). In the winning case, the Raiders were unanimously shut down in an owners vote by a territorial restriction created shortly before (1 against the world). The fact the report is a hack job is not a claim in itself. It undercuts evidence supporting some legal claim. A federal action would not be premised on a lack of evidence to support an NFL violation. I assume it would be a return to the antitrust act, and be a claim the disciplinary system constitutes an illegal restraint on trade in its arbitrary action. Having reviewed arbitration decisions, no way do I see that standard helping here. The antitrust act argument would appear to be a steeper climb given the unanimous action by the NFL rather than the decision of the NFL officers.
I just wanted to see if you had thought through theories. Out of curiosity, I looked at the law and constitution and bylaws to see what might be there. It looked to me like the possibilities were not awesome. However, many cases settle on a pure embarrassment/discomfort factor, so I would absolutely want to see the NFL and owners squirm on this, regardless of likely outcomes. Much of this case is about public regard, not money or picks, so quiet resolutions do nothing in that regard.
