Wash Post Article on League Support v. Brady

The article also says this

One person familiar with the league’s deliberations declined to directly confirm an ESPN report Wednesday that the union had made a settlement offer last week that had not drawn a response from the league. But the person noted that a willingness by the union to settle could be interpreted as Brady admitting at least some culpability, and added: “An admission of guilt is a significant move away from Brady’s previous position.”

Click to expand...

dont know what is true

SVN said:

The article also says this



dont know what is true

Click to expand...

I knew the second the initial report of a settlement came out that this would be the new spin.

Funny how those urging Brady just take whatever reduction of suspension he gets and move on. Sure as **** as soon as they get the slightest thing they can attempt to latch onto its "Guilty!! See?? He's guilty!"

I don't see go-to-hell backing down. All the media discussions / league-owner leaks seem to focus on maintaining the strength of the commissioners office ( even if the current occupant is a doofus).

One recent article made a solid point, him lowering the punishment makes him and the nfl look weak, but a court overturning something, in all the cases so far, has not caused him any issues. So why not go for full punishment and roll the dice with the court. Worst case, he just gets his hand slapped ( but just like Blatter in Fifa, he gets another six months to erase the email trails).

I truly wish we would see something monumental from a Brady case - like the judge revoking of the appeal clause and telling the nfl & nflpa to renegotiate that or directing a new independent appeals board be implemented.

Kdo5 said:

I knew the second the initial report of a settlement came out that this would be the new spin.

Funny how those urging Brady just take whatever reduction of suspension he gets and move on. Sure as **** as soon as they get the slightest thing they can attempt to latch onto its "Guilty!! See?? He's guilty!"

Click to expand...

That was Golic's take on it on Mike and Mike this morning. He did qualify it, later on, to say ....unless the fine is for the non-cooperation.

It'd be nice to hear someone come out and say, "Goodell should keep the 4 game suspension because guilt is determined by the following facts...but, we know there are no real facts. It's worst case scenario assumption built upon worst interpretation, ... with trumpeting by the media to build a consensus that was originated on a foundation of lies, innuendo and hatred of a successful team.

BradyFTW! said:

But the person noted that a willingness by the union to settle could be interpreted as Brady admitting at least some culpability, and added: “An admission of guilt is a significant move away from Brady’s previous position.”
​

God, people are really stupid sometimes.

On what planet does "I'll take some token fine that amounts to .0001% of my net worth if it means I don't have to spend 10x that and a year+ in court suing the **** out of you guys" = an admission of guit?

Click to expand...

The amount of people who have no understanding, at all, of how the legal system works, is really quite staggering. Of course, in this particular case, a lot of this lack of understanding is intentional. Non-guilty parties settle all the time, with no guilt attached, and many of these same people know that.

Kdo5 said:

I knew the second the initial report of a settlement came out that this would be the new spin.

Funny how those urging Brady just take whatever reduction of suspension he gets and move on. Sure as **** as soon as they get the slightest thing they can attempt to latch onto its "Guilty!! See?? He's guilty!"

Click to expand...

This. The same clowns who've been saying "Take one for the team!" are now crowing because Brady's at least willing to possible settle at some level. It's almost as if those clowns have an agenda....

Nfl will never see a penny from me again.

Spiral said:

I didn't know that the other owners get to weigh in on the penalties for rules violations. I wonder how many owners RG consulted before ruling on Woody's tampering case?

Click to expand...

Yea, kinda takes the "unbiased" out of "unbiased" no? What a **** ing, downright witch hunt. Sad part is 99.9% of people don't read the articles that we read. They rely on BSPN

SVN said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-offer-to-pay-fine-not-an-admission-of-guilt/

Click to expand...

Great to see. Tho, one leaf floating in a vast ocean of jealous fans rooting for a loser team. But, Through all of the this BS, the Pats are still the most winningest team ... . I think that's proper grammer/ spelling ? Alcohol

hambone1818 said:

This is what I find so laughable:
“I would find it hard to believe he would change it, given that he made the original decision,” a high-ranking official with one NFL franchise said Thursday. “Was there anything compelling in the [appeal] hearing to make him change his mind? I don’t know that there was.”

“I think other owners are concerned about what this means to the commissioner’s credibility,” the high-ranking team official said. “Do they care if it’s four games or two games or one game? I’m not sure they do. But they would like to see the commissioner emerge from it credible and looking like he’s dealing from a position of strength. I’m sure there are some [owners] who are anti-Patriots and jealous of their success. And then there are those who have to play them in the first four games.”

Putting aside the absurdity of owners lobbying the commish for a harsh penalty due to jealousy, or to derive a competitive advantage (seriously, that's what it amounts to...the hypocrisy of owners lobbying for their own competitive advantage when the subject at hand is Brady 'more than probably' having knowledge of footballs 'possibly' deflated .3 psi? So they're lobbying for a very real and substantial advantage for a violation that hasn't been proven and amounts to stickum towels--which garnered a $50K penalty for the Chargers). Do they (and everyone else) not see how Goodell shouldn't be arbiter in this case??? They want him 'dealing from a position of strength' by not overturning the original ruling that he made? Are they out of their ****ing minds? This is why you have independent arbiters! And this is why Brady wins in a court, slam dunk.

Click to expand...

This NFL Keystone Kops movie keeps getting better and better

A handful of NFL owners have basically made Goodell their puppet, and they’re worried about Goodell “losing credibility” over this farce of an episode

That lost credibility might have something to do with the fact that everyone knows Goodell is their puppet, following orders to suspend Brady to give others in the League a chance to win a Super Bowl

Isn’t it ironic that Goodell – who has postured indignantly righteous on the issue of 0.5psi in footballs is now working with the owners to provide them with an unfair competitive advantage by suspending Brady and taking away a Patriots’ 1st round pick?

This is #GoodellGate folks. Get your popcorn ready.

SVN said:

The article also says this

dont know what is true

Click to expand...

Read carefully and you'll see that it dances around without saying anything.

Start with a report that isn't even validated. Then presume that it was and extrapolate a possible meaning. Then presumes the accuracy of the extrapolation and discusses it as if it already happened.

Clever ******** is still ********.

BradyFTW! said:

But the person noted that a willingness by the union to settle could be interpreted as Brady admitting at least some culpability, and added: “An admission of guilt is a significant move away from Brady’s previous position.”
​

God, people are really stupid sometimes.

On what planet does "I'll take some token fine that amounts to .0001% of my net worth if it means I don't have to spend 10x that and a year+ in court suing the **** out of you guys" = an admission of guit?

Click to expand...

While you're basically right, I think you're misreading this particular article or quote. It's about whether Brady would settle for a smaller number of games suspended, not whether he'd accept a token fine.

resdubwhite said:

Nfl will never see a penny from me again.

Click to expand...

I have yet to go that far but circumstances could readily move me to that position.

I have simply sworn off direct contribution to the NFL this season. No purchase of 3 Games to Glory as I had planned. And I like several posters here whom I know, have informed my ticket sources that no games for me at Kraft's building this year. No tickets, no parking $ and no beer & sausages $ for 2015.

Rob0729 said:

From the article:

So basically the owners as a whole don't give a crap about Brady or whether he did it or not. They want Goodell to take a hardline stand just so it will make Goodell gain back credibility.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's just that, IMO every franchise owner that has a shot in the playoffs is interested in this punishment. From an AFC standpoint, the Patriots are basically a lock for the playoffs so starting 1-3 or 0-4, although we would still have a good shot, it would be another "virtual" open spot for the playoffs, every year the AFC has "5" playoff spots open for teams to battle trying to clinch one of those for them, this year it would be 6.

From an NFC standpoint, teams like Seattle and Packers that are the favorites would rather face Manning or Rivers in a SB match than Brady/Belichick. Dallas also because they would rather play the Pats with Garopollo instead of the GOAT.

And there are the sorry franchises cry babies like the Jest, Lolphins.

This punishment not only was a Vendetta and a frame job after the Pats humiliate the Ravens and Colts in the last playoff but it was convenient as hell for a lot of teams. I see the Patriots better this year comparing to last year, we improved in every position not named CB. And it's already a fact that if there is a coach that can lose a top notch secondary and rebuild it on the fly, his name is Belichick.

So without this whole farce, would it be too much homerism to call the Pats a SB contender? I don't think so. Eliminating a team that has a clear shot at the SB is in the best interest of everyone not related to the Patriots.

So yes, there are a good percentage of franchises interested in this punishment. Jaguars, Titans, Chiefs for instance I would agree it's tomato, tomato, they don't stand a chance anyway.

varjao said:

From an AFC standpoint, the Patriots are basically a lock for the playoffs so starting 1-3 or 0-4, although we would still have a good shot, it would be another open spot for the playoffs, evey year the AFC has 5 teams competing for a playoff spot, this year it would be 6.

Click to expand...

Look at the punishment from a different vantage point as well.
What if the Pats did start out 0-4 or 1-3, and then other things, like crucial injuries, all work together to torpedo the Pats' season?

We'll the NFL has already planned for that potentiality. If the Pats suffer a down year the loss of the Pats 1st round pick, which could be a true difference maker that they normally do not get a chance to draft, would help ensure it is more difficult for the Pats to recover quickly.

Consider also the conditions on that lost 1st rounder that prevents the Pats from trading for a higher pick since the highest pick will be the one confiscated. This is a reaction to the 2007 draft when the Pats had their own 1st rounder stolen, but a lot of people were all butthurt that the Pats still had a higher pick to use, courtesy of a trade the previous year.

This part of the punishment really jumps out at me as demonstrating the true vindictiveness of the ruling.

Deflategate has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or integrity of the league. It is all about damaging the Pats.

Silver Blue&Red said:

Great to see. Tho, one leaf floating in a vast ocean of jealous fans rooting for a loser team. But, Through all of the this BS, the Pats are still the most winningest team ... . I think that's proper grammer/ spelling ? Alcohol

Click to expand...

For all intensive purposes, yes

The Gr8est said:

Look at the punishment from a different vantage point as well.
If the Pats did start out 0-4 or 1-3, and then other things, like crucial injuries, all work together to torpedo the Pats' season.

We'll the NFL has already planned for that potentiality. If the Pats suffer a down year the loss of the Pats 1st round pick, which could be a true difference maker that they normally do not get a chance to draft, would help ensure it is more difficult for the Pats to recover quickly.

Consider also the conditions on that lost 1st rounder that prevents the Pats from trading for a higher pick since the highest pick will be the one confiscated. This is a reaction to the 2007 draft when the Pats had their own 1st rounder stolen, but a lot of people were all butthurt that the Pats still had a higher pick to use, courtesy of a trade the previous year.

This part of the punishment really jumps out at me as demonstrating the true vindictiveness of the ruling.

Deflategate has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or integrity of the league. It is all about damaging the Pats.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree man and I said after they announced the penalties that this was a long term plan by design to kill the Brady window, he is 38, suspended 4 games, next year he will (hopefully) be 39 without a 1st round pick, we would be back in the "fair game" in 2017, he would be 40 and there's still that 4th round pick that's where BB gets a steal every year.

I was ok with Brady retiring at 40 after playing out this contract, I hope he plays until 45 at least and keep making their lives misery. I hope Brady also vests the Bad Boy character and start to treat the press like sh.it and tell them to go to hell, and call for another players as well, Sherman style. If that's what NFL wants to make him look, **** them all. Haters gonna hate.

How does the Commissioner emerge as credible if he sticks to the 4 game suspension and it's overturned in court? Not sure why the owners would push for this given that this is the likely result. It's just delaying the inevitable. The only way he maintains any credibility is if Brady concedes and all signs point to that not happening (thank God!)