- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 32,634
- Reaction score
- 23,169
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).
Oh, man--let's hope so!
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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).
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?
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?
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...
Anyone know who this YOUGOTMOSSED guy is? Possibly a dog faker?
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."
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."
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.
I tweet, therefore I am.I believe nothing that comes from twitter.
It's a meeting in the middle of two opposite extreme beliefs, which is what the entire purpose of the settlement attempts are about.
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
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."