- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 68,285
- Reaction score
- 105,207
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.If Mara were somehow able to force a lesser suspension, he could make it so Brady plays against Dallas. As it stands right now, he wouldn't.
If Mara sided with Brady he could be accused of wanting TB to play against the CBoys. A lose for Dallas is a benefit to the Giants - conflict of interest.
By Mara's standard--the Patriots play one of his division rivals in the first four weeks--half the owners in the league would have a conflict of interest by stepping in.
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Giants co-owner John Mara has declined a request that he participate directly in the talks, citing a competitive conflict of interest arising from New England’s Week Five game against the Cowboys. If Brady’s suspension is reduced by even one game, Brady will play in the post-bye contest against Dallas — and New England will be more likely to win.
Mara’s position is confusing, for various reasons. First, Mara is believed to be one of the owners pushing for the league to take a hard line with Brady. Second, if there’s any settlement of the four-game suspension, it surely would entail a reduction by at least one game. Third, perceived competitive conflicts of interest didn’t keep Mara from having direct involvement in cap penalties imposed on Dallas and Washington, or from stridently boasting that his pair of NFC East rivals were lucky that the penalty wasn’t worse.
He's right, too. Any owner in a division where those four teams play would have a pretty big conflict.
In this case, 14 of 32 owners would have this same conflict. (Either with their own teams or divisional teams)
Stop right there. Can you spot the problem?Mort said
Now it's been changed to "League nixes idea to involve John Mara"