Does ANYONE know who Mike Gasior is???

strngplyr said:

The NFL may have played chicken as long as they could, now it's time to swerve right and hit the curb. They lost (in this scenario).

Click to expand...

Oh, man--let's hope so!

You guys are getting your hopes way too high about this. I mean didn't Zolak just share how Brady was pissed about how Tuesday went down?

Wrath Mania said:

You guys are getting your hopes way too high about this. I mean didn't Zolak just share how Brady was pissed about how Tuesday went down?

Click to expand...

And the (generally) most reliable reporter in the biz said that Brady agreed to accept a suspension for no admission of guilt.

3 wildly different stories right now.

Reiss points out an interesting, yet unfortunate tidbit in yesterday's mailbag:

"In one respect, you have history to look at and see that in a six-year period from 2006-2012 in the Southern District Court of New York (where Brady and the NFL are being heard), there were 68 arbitration cases heard and only two were denied confirmation (stats via the New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer magazine). That probably explains why the NFL quickly filed to have the decision confirmed there."

Wrath Mania said:

You guys are getting your hopes way too high about this. I mean didn't Zolak just share how Brady was pissed about how Tuesday went down?

Click to expand...

WAY too high is right.

If Goodell agreed to this lopsided victory then (A) The Judge must have really read Goodell the riot act on what the court's ruling was likely to be. It probably included the judge sating he would make personal comments that would excoriate Goodell's/NFL's submissions/behavior. (B) a growing number of owners have been calling Goodell and politely telling him that a lopsided loss in court could be an unfixable wound to him given how minor the supposed psi stuff was.

Goodell is in for a public walloping if he agreed to this rumor. I would go so far as to say Kraft and other owners 'uncomfortable' with Goodell will feel emboldened to oust him or reduce his authority.

In other words, considering all that, this rumor is EXTREMELY unlikely. It would all but assure Goodell is a weakened man if not a lame duck in the making. No way this sleezeball goes down that easy...

TheBostonStraggler said:

WAY too high is right.

If Goodell agreed to this lopsided victory then (A) The Judge must have really read Goodell the riot act on what the court's ruling was likely to be. It probably included the judge sating he would make personal comments that would excoriate Goodell's/NFL's submissions/behavior. (B) a growing number of owners have been calling Goodell and politely telling him that a lopsided loss in court could be an unfixable wound to him given how minor the supposed psi stuff was.

Goodell is in for a public walloping if he agreed to this rumor. I would go so far as to say Kraft and other owners 'uncomfortable' with Goodell will feel emboldened to oust him or reduce his authority.

In other words, considering all that, this rumor is EXTREMELY unlikely. It would all but assure Goodell is a weakened man if not a lame duck in the making. No way this sleezeball goes down that easy...

Click to expand...

No way in hell, particularly since he'd still have a magic bullet left in the chamber regarding the all important appeal.

He's not going to roll over and give up the right to appeal. At least that's my opinion.

To take it one step further, I'm not sure why people are assuming that he is scared, or that this process equates to an automatic victory for Brady and the union? As many have pointed out, this is a gamble for both sides.

At the end of it all, I actually think we go backwards, and Berman orders the case to be reheard. I don't see how it's going away any time soon.

Froob said:

Anyone know who this YOUGOTMOSSED guy is? Possibly a dog faker?

Click to expand...

I stand by my anonymous, imaginary sources whose identities I cannot disclose because . . . you know . . . I'm all about ethics and sh*t.

supafly said:

Reiss points out an interesting, yet unfortunate tidbit in yesterday's mailbag:

"In one respect, you have history to look at and see that in a six-year period from 2006-2012 in the Southern District Court of New York (where Brady and the NFL are being heard), there were 68 arbitration cases heard and only two were denied confirmation (stats via the New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer magazine). That probably explains why the NFL quickly filed to have the decision confirmed there."

Click to expand...

How many of those arbitration cases had power drunk bozos that judged their own arbitration penalties? I think the media will discover that the legal system does in fact have the power to override arbitration rules.

Mike Gasior is right because many want him to be right..

Meanwhile Mort, Steven A and a host of others are waking up in their sleeping bags in the NFL office lobby all waiting to find out if they will be leaked a story by Kensil or his minions..

supafly said:

Reiss points out an interesting, yet unfortunate tidbit in yesterday's mailbag:

"In one respect, you have history to look at and see that in a six-year period from 2006-2012 in the Southern District Court of New York (where Brady and the NFL are being heard), there were 68 arbitration cases heard and only two were denied confirmation (stats via the New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer magazine). That probably explains why the NFL quickly filed to have the decision confirmed there."

Click to expand...

I doubt the statistics are all that different in other districts. The reason they filed in NY is because they wanted to rule out the possibility of ending up in front of Doty at worst, or being under his binding decisions at best.

Also, wth exactly is a "partial" suspension? That just seems like an odd phrasing. TBH, I think the league would have or at least should have jumped at any offer with a suspension. It's as close to a victory as I think they can get.

adam941 said:

I doubt the statistics are all that different in other districts. The reason they filed in NY is because they wanted to rule out the possibility of ending up in front of Doty at worst, or being under his binding decisions at best.

Click to expand...

I'm just passing along Reiss' statement that 66/68 arbitration rulings have been upheld in the period examined between '06 and '12, that's all. Yes, they wanted to try and get away from Doty, but there's also a reason why they specifically chose the Southern district of NY just as well. Reiss may be onto something.

adam941 said:

Also, wth exactly is a "partial" suspension? That just seems like an odd phrasing. TBH, I think the league would have or at least should have jumped at any offer with a suspension. It's as close to a victory as I think they can get.

Click to expand...

It's a meeting in the middle of two opposite extreme beliefs, which is what the entire purpose of the settlement attempts are about. Of course the key issue for Brady is no admission of guilt, whereas the NFL wants the opposite.

If Brady and Kessler wish to place their absolute bottom line offer on the table for consideration, more power to them. Perhaps it would be acceptable to finally place this stupid issue behind him by agreeing to one lousy game without admission of guilt, and perhaps it's nothing more than a posturing ploy to try and prove that the NFL really isn't interested in moving from their stubborn stance.

Incarcerated Bob appears?

FrodoBagginz said:

I believe nothing that comes from twitter.

Click to expand...

I tweet, therefore I am.

supafly said:

It's a meeting in the middle of two opposite extreme beliefs, which is what the entire purpose of the settlement attempts are about.

Click to expand...

I would disagree slightly - the settlement attempts are more likely viewed from each participant's perspective as solving a unique facet of the problem:

• Judge Berman: Get this steaming pile of crap off my docket!
• Tom Brady: I am innocent, and I want the record to reflect that!
• Roger Goodell: I need to come out f this looking like a hero to my constituencies.
• NFL: We need to avoid a binding judicial decision that cedes power to the NFLPA.
• NFLPA: We need to cure this open sore that is the disciplinary process under the CBA.

Those are the essential constraints on the solution space for a settlement. The settlement must satisfy all the constraints, otherwise it will not come to pass. Whether the settlement is in the middle of these positions or not, doesn't matter. It just needs to be somewhere in the solution space.

Example: Japan surrenders to the United States in WWII. A settlement that was NOT in the middle, but was amendable to all parties, because it satisfied their essential constraints.

For that reason, while I think the tweeter is probably trolling for followers, his settlement terms are possibly correct - if the language around them satisfies the essential constraints of the stakeholders.

The guy gives seminars. My guess is he put that up in Twitter and is now monitoring boards and other social media reactions to it for an upcoming seminar on public perceptions and reactions. I can see him giving a seminar on how one innocuous tweet can become reality (ala mortenson).

It would be nice if the guy is right and we all eat boiled crow.

it is possible that it is based on a decision by the judge and giving the NFL to put it out there before he does

IllegalContact said:

it is possible that it is based on a decision by the judge and giving the NFL to put it out there before he does

Click to expand...

Yeahhhh, No.

supafly said:

Reiss points out an interesting, yet unfortunate tidbit in yesterday's mailbag:

"In one respect, you have history to look at and see that in a six-year period from 2006-2012 in the Southern District Court of New York (where Brady and the NFL are being heard), there were 68 arbitration cases heard and only two were denied confirmation (stats via the New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer magazine). That probably explains why the NFL quickly filed to have the decision confirmed there."

Click to expand...

Anyone paying attention knew about that two weeks ago. Also that stat is meaningless due to the fact that two were overturned.

I would say this guy is probably not making this up for the lulz and he really did hear it from someone he thinks would be in the know.

Now whether that source has legit info...I would doubt that but we shall see.