MassPats38 -- are you an attorney?
I'm curious about a few things:
- With the granting of final arbitration authority to the commissioner, is there any implied fiduciary responsibility or can they do anything they want?
- Does the "law of the shop" figure into this at all? Again, can the arbitrator just do anything they want?
- Are there other actions (defamation suits or otherwise) that could force the NFL to disclose how this all started, who did what and whether they prejudged the situation?
Even if you're right, MP38, I don't think this has to be a legal solution. This is public opinion, and even if the NFL successfully quashed any legal action, this is not going away.
I hope Roger realizes that even when he's 80 years old, he could come to Foxboro for a game, and he would still be booed!
Yes, as are a few others here. My professed arbitration law experience was long ago when I was working for a federal judge up north. We handled every arbitration case filed nationally and internationally for a certain chain restaurant (as well as others arising in other contexts rather than venue designations).
Arbitration cases are frequently boring because they turn on compliance with contracts. The court interprets the contracts, and defines gives the scope of claims subject to the contract. The last entry on the docket in Louisiana for the defamation claim was exactly what you'd expect (with one State theory added in for dismissing the case). Blown up completely as within the scope of arbitration and then killed on other theories.
Contracts are interpreted using "usage of trade" (industry meanings). Goody can only do what the parties agreed to do. If something is undefined, the parties may well argue acceptable norms in the particular industry in order to fill in the blanks.
Procedures must be those defined by the agreement. The court will interpret the process, and then ascertain if the process was followed (that appears to be a big issue here). It would appear odd to describe an appeal if the decision-maker appealed is the same person. Was that the mutual intention of the parties? If interpreted as 'yes', then no problem. If 'no', then big problem.
I agree it does not have to be a legal solution. The question is does Goody have the sack to back out of his entrenched position, to the dismay of 31 other teams. Would Brady simply accept his punishment and move on? In terms of finding a common ground to settle and kill all issues, there seems to be a fairly wide gap to bridge and avoid the outcome.
In the end, I hate seeing kangaroo courts so I hope Brady sticks to his guns. My fear is he is a team player who loves to win, and may ultimately compromise for the good of the Pats. I hope that is not the case.
