Florio's "lose-lose" ruling proposal

Florio points out that one way Berman could "encourage" a settlement would be to let both sides know he's going to issue a ruling that they're both going to hate.

Florio then proposes such a ruling:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/13/a-lose-lose-outcome-in-brady-case-remains-possible/

I have no idea how likely something like that would be. And I certainly wouldn't like it.

But I posted the link because I found it interesting how much control Berman could have over the re-arbitration process if he orders re-arbitration (assuming Florio is correct that a judge could order such things).

Oh Florio, you were doing so well lately.

Drugs are bad, mkay.

VectorPrime said:

Oh Florio, you were doing so well lately.

Click to expand...

It reinforces the notion that Florio doesn't particularly care for anyone other than himself and clicks. Quite a few people have repeatedly made statements similar to there is always an agenda with Florio and we would be wise to consider that before patronage.

QuantumMechanic said:

But I posted the link because I found it interesting how much control Berman could have over the re-arbitration process if he orders re-arbitration (assuming Florio is correct that a judge could order such things).

Click to expand...

You mean compared to the prospect of sending it for rehearing in front of a third party neutral arbitrator, I assume? That one seemed to be a popular thought in your poll yesterday, as almost 1/3 of us chose that outcome.

The only sign of good faith settlement bargaining that we saw today was the non-cooperation, presumably resulting in a fine. Florio is proposing for that non-cooperation to be turned into obstruction, and for obstruction to be worthy of a suspension for the first time ever.

Yeah, let's punish the side that is working toward middle ground by turning their concessions against them. That doesn't send the wrong message or anything.

ausbacker said:

It reinforces the notion that Florio doesn't particularly care for anyone other than himself and clicks. Quite a few people have repeatedly made statements similar to there is always an agenda with Florio and we would be wise to consider that before patronage.

Click to expand...

Well yeah. Once this mess is finally over he will have outlived his usefullness and can be safely discarded.

VectorPrime said:

Well yeah. Once this mess is finally over he will have outlived his usefullness and can be safely discarded.

Click to expand...

The only useful thing Florio has done is bring attention to some of the relevant facts of this case, facts the supposedly impartial, non-biased, professional media should have investigated. That's where my admiration for Florio ends.

If the court has to do all that, it might as well decide the case.

I suppose he could do that - Florio knows more law that I do. But I think the NFL would hate that deal a lot less then Tom Brady.. The NFL would love that outcome. As long as Roger gets to decide you can guarantee the outcome. Tom might as well not even show up.. No amount of embarrassment would stop Goodell. He will just go all 1984 and lie and deny even factual points. Hey we have direct evidence that Brady cheated - well he knows good and well he has no direct evidence.. That's a prime example..

But the big problem with it is this - I don't think it pays enough attention to the legal aspects of the case. To avoid issues with appeal courts - judges generally like to follow precedent and at least appear to address any legal questions the correct way..

A ruling that does not address any legal issues at all - on a case that is getting pretty good attention is not going to really sit well with his peers..IMHO.

Reading the article, the only way Brady could lose for the most part is if Jastremski and/or has something that could incriminate Brady and/or the Pats. For the most part, Brady would win in this scenario.

BigPeteG said:

I suppose he could do that - Florio knows more law that I do. But I think the NFL would hate that deal a lot less then Tom Brady.. The NFL would love that outcome. As long as Roger gets to decide you can guarantee the outcome. Tom might as well not even show up.. No amount of embarrassment would stop Goodell. He will just go all 1984 and lie and deny even factual points. Hey we have direct evidence that Brady cheated - well he knows good and well he has no direct evidence.. That's a prime example..

But the big problem with it is this - I don't think it pays enough attention to the legal aspects of the case. To avoid issues with appeal courts - judges generally like to follow precedent and at least appear to address any legal questions the correct way..

A ruling that does not address any legal issues at all - on a case that is getting pretty good attention is not going to really sit well with his peers..IMHO.

Click to expand...

I see that as the opposite. I think the NFL would think this outcome worst possible outcome. It would expose the Wells investigation for the sham it was. It could open the League up to defamation suits from Brady, Jastremski, McNally, Kraft, Richie Incognito, and Jim Turner (if the Wells report in this case is shown to a sham it would strengthen defamation suits for any Wells investigation). If making public work product of the Wells investigation shows a concerted effort to manufacture evidence, it could cost the NFL hundreds of millions and most certainly Goodell his job.

Goodell isn't worried about being embarrassed in this situation. He is worried that releasing everything and forcing Pash to testify will provide Brady with proof of malice which would give him a slam dunk defamation suit. With the report that he lost 50% of his endorsements, even an out of court settlement would be in the tens or hundreds of millions. If Brady wins a defamation suit either in court or via settlement, Goodell would be fired by the owners.

And let's not forget that if there is enough evidence that the Wells investigation was a sham could trigger Congress to call for hearings. Goodell testifying to Congress could cost him his job.

I'm going to go against the grain here, and say this would be a good outcome. A full hearing in what amounts to open court?? "Please, please don't throw me in that brier patch!!!"

In particular, consequences could be:

Evidence would see the light of day. Brady would presumably get his name cleared. The Pats could get their named cleared as well.

If Goodell wants to suspend Brady for doing nothing wrong other than winning Super Bowls, fine. The effect (suspension and also court interference with his preseason prep) could lead to a couple extra early-season losses, once, in one season. So be it.

Precedent or no precedent, Goodell would get his dictatorial powers negotiated away in the next CBA.

If the penalty and vendetta against the Pats are exposed as utterly ridiculous, Goodell might be fired and/or the Pats' penalty might be reduced.

Would the other owners be so vindictive to have this bleed into another season? I have a hard time believing this doesn't end back up in court if there's any suspension.

This scenario actually sounds awesome if NFL had to give up all their communication and notes. I don't think Brady would be suspended for obstructing the investigation seeing how he didn't. Or at least for good reason as we can see with the emails. If Wells and Goodell's communication came out they'd be toast.

Throwing stuff against the wall...

The only point on Brady he seems to be making is about the equipment guys. And them talking shouldn't be a problem.

Froob said:

This scenario actually sounds awesome if NFL had to give up all their communication and notes. I don't think Brady would be suspended for obstructing the investigation seeing how he didn't. Or at least for good reason as we can see with the emails. If Wells and Goodell's communication came out they'd be toast.

Click to expand...

Yup, look what happened when all the other stuff started to get released and the NFL's credibility took a hit. I'm sure there's more in those files they don't want released ( and likely for good reason) that will either exonerate Brady and the Pats or point the finger at others...which is the last thing the putzes of Park Avenue want...

The only way Brady can lose is if he has been lying during his "sworn" testimony (and I don't believe he is lying at all).

The NFL can't gain anything by having to be more transparent. They can't win anymore in this thing (in my opinion) and I strongly suspect they have information that would really make them look bad if it sees the light of day. Now, emails and texts will, for now, remain private for them. Based on what we heard, I want to see this evidence that Pash alluded to (and tried to support Herr Goodell of Brady's scheme) being called to see the light of day in a public forum.

QuantumMechanic said:

Florio points out that one way Berman could "encourage" a settlement would be to let both sides know he's going to issue a ruling that they're both going to hate.

Florio then proposes such a ruling:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/13/a-lose-lose-outcome-in-brady-case-remains-possible/

I have no idea how likely something like that would be. And I certainly wouldn't like it.

But I posted the link because I found it interesting how much control Berman could have over the re-arbitration process if he orders re-arbitration (assuming Florio is correct that a judge could order such things).

Click to expand...

The way I see it, Florio is saying that Berman could threaten to do those things in order to force both sides to settle on their own.