Love the idea of using the winnings to help the older players who didn't get a decent pension.
I don't know how scared the NFL would be, since there would be a high likelihood of the courts dismissing such a case, like in the Vilma case (who actually won his suit in federal court).
I'd be interested in comparing some of the comments made in the Vilma case, but we do know that there were obvious, blatant lies such as the incorrect accusation that Vilma was the "ringleader" of the whole scandal, openly encouraging and even offering incentives for the other players to physically injure the opposition.
Sorry, I can't take credit for the old timers idea. I read in a thread here, so someone else needs to step up.
You made a good point, when you noted that for what I hope to come true Brady's defamation suit would need to pass summary judgment where Vilma's didn't. I don't know what reasons the judge in that case gave for his decisions, nor do I know what points Vilma tried and failed to make.
However there are a few differences I can think of right off the bat that may make a comparison between a potential Brady defamation case, and what happened to Vilma. First of all Brady has a much higher profile than Vilma, and the damages to him will be much easier to prove. Second there is no question that the Saints put up bounties, though I admit I'm not familiar enough with the case to know what evidence the League had or didn't have that would have allowed them to single out Vilma for special attention.
With the Brady case, the vast preponderance of evidence makes clear that NOTHING happened at the AFCCG. There was no tangible proof of Brady doing anything. Yet on the flimsiest of "evidence" the NFL spent multi-millions of dollars in time and effort to defame, then prosecute and punish him, in what was an overtly unfair procedure. A procedure that has already proven that the information initially given to the press and instigated the affair was not in the least accurate. Its been proven that the League, not only purposely didn't attempt to change that incorrect narrative, they didn't allow the Pats or Brady to correct it, or even defend themselves in public. It's been proven that the "independent" investigation was nothing of the sort. Nor can the "independent investigator's" conclusions can stand the light of the facts. And lets not get me started on the absurd over reaction of the penalties to the crimes that weren't committed.
S0, unless you can make some points that would convince me otherwise, I think Brady would be able to present a MUCH stronger case of defamation than Vilma did. One that would at LEAST be strong enough to overcome the "summary judgment" hurdle, and get us to discovery. But of course all this is moot, if Brady doesn't take the next step, regardless of how Berman rules on the 19th.
BTW- Bob Kraft took one step back on his rehabilitation back to my good graces with his last press conference. He can get ALL the way back (IMO), if he takes the next step and either joins Brady in his defamation suit, or brings one of his own. (if it's legal) One because I want my team's good name back, and 2ndly, I want my draft picks back. Because right now, it looks like if God himself came down and declared the Pats and Brady were innocent, and Goodell was Satan incarnate, the NFL still wouldn't have to give back those picks.
