Tom Curran interview with Dan Patrick

SVN · Sep 2, 2015

well there was another idiot on today -tim cowlishaw who sys brady shouldve taken 4 games to be the bigger man!!
http://www.danpatrick.com/2015/09/0...-could-have-taken-suspension-to-save-trouble/
WTF

letekro · Sep 2, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Incorrect.
There is an appeals process for teams. It has been used in other cases.

I stand corrected.

ctpatsfan77 · Sep 2, 2015

Patriot_in_NY said:
Dan Patrick is a tool........ and he cannot get past Kraft (many of us feared that Krafty's capitulation would have this exact this effect).

I think that Kraft also realized that he had little choice but to accept the penalty for the "equipment violation" as it's always been a team penalty anyway. That's being generous to him I know, but in reality, that's what he was faced with. No recourse, except to piss and moan, which was never his style.

And, apparently, he was under the mistaken belief that accepting the penalties would likely make things easier on Brady.

ctpatsfan77 · Sep 2, 2015

SVN said:
well there was another idiot on today -tim cowlishaw who sys brady shouldve taken 4 games to be the bigger man!!
http://www.danpatrick.com/2015/09/0...-could-have-taken-suspension-to-save-trouble/
WTF

Cowlishaw is based in Dallas . . . and when do the Cowboys play the Patriots again?

Koma · Sep 2, 2015

SVN said:
well there was another idiot on today -tim cowlishaw who sys brady shouldve taken 4 games to be the bigger man!!
http://www.danpatrick.com/2015/09/0...-could-have-taken-suspension-to-save-trouble/
WTF

I'm sure there is some unsolved crime that occurred in Tim's home city/town. If he gets accused of it based on flimsy evidence (let's say it was a theft and Tim used the word "steal" in a text to describe a fantasy football trade), he would just accept his penalty with no argument, right?

patfanken · Sep 2, 2015

I was thinking of WHAT possibly Goodell could have said to Kraft to get him to capitulate. But some of the revelations of the last few weeks have combined to give me something I can now grasp. Let me know if you think this a "reasonable" possibility of what happened.

Goodell - "Ok Bob I know what you are going to say, the Welles Report evidence is not exactly rock solid, but it is more than enough for me to make my point. Listen Bob, the other owners are pissed. Even if what we have is weak, most are CONVINCED that your team is doing "something" in order to keep winning for so long. I have to admit, that I have to wonder as well."

Kraft - "But Roger......."

Goodell - "I hate to use such a cliche, but 'it is what it is". Remember Bob, when;the owners of Dallas, Washington, and NO all had to take it when I gave out my punishments, you were right there backing me up. I would get killed now if it were seen like I was letting you guys off after that.

Kraft - "But Roger....."

Goodell - "So here is what is going down. I'm going to give you a choice. Either you take the loss of the draft picks and the money, and feel free to appeal Brady'so suspension. I'll do what I can for Tom in that area" (and laughs an evil laugh that Kraft can't hear, and adds.......) HOWEVER, if you fight me on this, Bob, I will have no choice but to bring Bellichick into this. I can easily justify to my fellow owners a suspension of anything from 4 games to a full year's suspension. And believe me, Bob, your fellow owners will back me to the hilt on this, if only because of the competitive edge they'd get"

"So, believe me, Bob, if you think its bad now, I can make it much much worse."

Kraft - "But Roger......

Goodell - Listen Bob. I've been assured by my lawyers that I have almost universal power to do what I want regardless of what you want. They've told me that it won't even matter if you eventually have evidence to prove nothing happened vs the Colts, Any appeal you and Brady make will have to go before a Federal Judge based only on technical issues concerning arbitration, NOT about whether anything happened." My lawyers have assured me that it is very unlikely that my decision can be over turned.

"Bob, Understand that over the last few months we have created enough questions in the public mind that "something" happened, You won't be able to stem that tide, I promise you that" Our media partners have bee working overtime to protect our narrative. You HAVE to see the futility of fighting that now"

Kraft -" But Roger......"

Goodell - Enough, Robert. Enough. You have two choices. You either accept the penalties as outlined and hope for the best for Brady in appeal, or you fight me and we will add Bellichick to the punishments and we will make it stick! Believe me, we will make it stick! Now what's you answer? The other owners are waiting for my answer.; I need to get back to them with something. So what is it?".

Kraft - uh...uh...... OK....

Now that we know how much support Goodell had from owners who either wanted to get back at Kraft for supporting Goodell when THEY got the hammer, or those owners who just wanted to take the Pats down, so their team can do better. Now that we know that Goodell feels that he's been made invulnerable by the CBA and the law that surrounds it. It is easier to see that he just might have made Kraft, "an offer he couldn't refuse" and got him to do what WE think was unthinkable.

This is not an attempt to redeem Kraft, but it is an attempt to possibly explain a decision that heretofore belied explanation

Tony2046 · Sep 2, 2015

JMC00 said:
Gotta love it.

Kraft accepts the punishment- "Why did he do it if Brady didn't do anything"

Kraft doesn't- "Bob Kraft is a hypocrite. He stands by goodell when other teams get punished and tells them to accept it, but when it is his team it's a different story"

Newsflash, Kraft accepted it because he reaped what he sowed. Him accepting it had nothing to do if he thought Brady was guilty.

That's the best explanation I've heard yet.

h0c2000 · Sep 2, 2015

Bob Kraft would rather hang with the champagne sippers than the beer guzzlers. That's his right, as is my right to repudiate his stance.

Tony2046 · Sep 2, 2015

h0c2000 said:
Bob Kraft would rather hang with the champagne sippers than the beer guzzlers. That's his right, as is my right to repudiate his stance.

Where do Boxed wine guzzlers fit into this?

primetime · Sep 2, 2015

Mike the Brit said:
I thought at first Kraft backed off because he was old, tired, had lost his wife and just wanted to be left in peace to shtup his shikse. I also think that his so-called "buddies" among the owners (Mara, maybe the Rooneys -- may they rot!) leant on him hard.

Now I think that something else was there. The owners believe (following the Harvard guy, Peter Carfagna) that, if they give up the Commissioner's authority over discipline, they'll lose power more generally (Carfagna says that that's what led to free agency in baseball).

So people who want to see Jonathan take over (looking at you, PWP) shouldn't take it for granted he'd have fought harder. Interesting that Jonathan was musing on the radio about changing the system for the future -- in a way that doesn't open things up and give power to the NFLPA, you can be sure.

I don't know why this is so surprising to anyone. The commissioner works for the owners, the league exists to make money for the owners, not to make money for the players or to entertain fans except insofar as that's necessary for continued profit.

The relationship between owner and player is, in the final analysis, one of employer and employee. You hear it all the time, "It's just a business." Why should anyone have expected Kraft to stand on the side of his employee against an ownership collective of which he himself is part?

RobertWeathers · Sep 2, 2015

primetime said:
I don't know why this is so surprising to anyone. The commissioner works for the owners, the league exists to make money for the owners, not to make money for the players or to entertain fans except insofar as that's necessary for continued profit.

The relationship between owner and player is, in the final analysis, one of employer and employee. You hear it all the time, "It's just a business." Why should anyone have expected Kraft to stand on the side of his employee against an ownership collective of which he himself is part?

Exactly.

The cold hard truth that his heart may be loyal to Tom but his financial motivation and principals are loyal to the NFL and the other 31 owners. He may not be buddy-buddy with the other owners but they are all loyal to the structure and culture that is in place. Going against that is taboo.

There is no greater example of this loyalty than Bob telling Tom that if he wants an at-market deal, it can't happen in New England and he wanted to stay, he would need to take a below market deal. You can argue that it was a "whats good for the Patriots" position but that was not in the least a, "I want to pay Tom what he deserves.". position.

If Tom was firm in demanding at-market money he'd be playing for someone else right now.

Bobsyouruncle · Sep 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
Exactly.

The cold hard truth that his heart may be loyal to Tom but his financial motivation and principals are loyal to the NFL and the other 31 owners. He may not be buddy-buddy with the other owners but they are all loyal to the structure and culture that is in place. Going against that is taboo.

There is no greater example of this loyalty than Bob telling Tom that if he wants an at-market deal, it can't happen in New England and he wanted to stay, he would need to take a below market deal. You can argue that it was a "whats good for the Patriots" position but that was not in the least a, "I want to pay Tom what he deserves.". position.

If Tom was firm in demanding at-market money he'd be playing for someone else right now.

I don't buy this. First, the appeal was for the team punishment, not Brady's so there's no owner/player element. He would be appealing his own punishment.

Second, the good of the league argument doesn't wash. Co-owners in business disagree all the time on what's best for business, stockholders disagree with how businesses are run, it doesn't weaken the business. Additionally many franchises have appealed punishments and the league did just fine.

Third, the money angle would mean that Kraft thinks that his fine will somehow be recouped through Goodell's brilliant leadership in a way it wouldn't if he appealed. That's some fuzzy math. It could be argued more convincingly that opposition to the NFL acting foolish is a better financial decision than letting them continue to look stupid. Also the NFL office is an expense to Kraft, he makes money from his team, so allowing the NFL to drag his team through the mud is hardly good for him personally if he's all about the bottom dollar.

You could also say he did it so they go easier on Brady but then you're arguing the other side, that he put a player ahead of his team which undermines the owner/player battle argument.

The last one is the only one that makes any sense even though I don't think it accomplished anything. But I can at least see some logic to it.

Ring 6 · Sep 2, 2015

patfanken said:
I was thinking of WHAT possibly Goodell could have said to Kraft to get him to capitulate. But some of the revelations of the last few weeks have combined to give me something I can now grasp. Let me know if you think this a "reasonable" possibility of what happened.

Goodell - "Ok Bob I know what you are going to say, the Welles Report evidence is not exactly rock solid, but it is more than enough for me to make my point. Listen Bob, the other owners are pissed. Even if what we have is weak, most are CONVINCED that your team is doing "something" in order to keep winning for so long. I have to admit, that I have to wonder as well."

Kraft - "But Roger......."

Goodell - "I hate to use such a cliche, but 'it is what it is". Remember Bob, when;the owners of Dallas, Washington, and NO all had to take it when I gave out my punishments, you were right there backing me up. I would get killed now if it were seen like I was letting you guys off after that.

Kraft - "But Roger....."

Goodell - "So here is what is going down. I'm going to give you a choice. Either you take the loss of the draft picks and the money, and feel free to appeal Brady'so suspension. I'll do what I can for Tom in that area" (and laughs an evil laugh that Kraft can't hear, and adds.......) HOWEVER, if you fight me on this, Bob, I will have no choice but to bring Bellichick into this. I can easily justify to my fellow owners a suspension of anything from 4 games to a full year's suspension. And believe me, Bob, your fellow owners will back me to the hilt on this, if only because of the competitive edge they'd get"

"So, believe me, Bob, if you think its bad now, I can make it much much worse."

Kraft - "But Roger......

Goodell - Listen Bob. I've been assured by my lawyers that I have almost universal power to do what I want regardless of what you want. They've told me that it won't even matter if you eventually have evidence to prove nothing happened vs the Colts, Any appeal you and Brady make will have to go before a Federal Judge based only on technical issues concerning arbitration, NOT about whether anything happened." My lawyers have assured me that it is very unlikely that my decision can be over turned.

"Bob, Understand that over the last few months we have created enough questions in the public mind that "something" happened, You won't be able to stem that tide, I promise you that" Our media partners have bee working overtime to protect our narrative. You HAVE to see the futility of fighting that now"

Kraft -" But Roger......"

Goodell - Enough, Robert. Enough. You have two choices. You either accept the penalties as outlined and hope for the best for Brady in appeal, or you fight me and we will add Bellichick to the punishments and we will make it stick! Believe me, we will make it stick! Now what's you answer? The other owners are waiting for my answer.; I need to get back to them with something. So what is it?".

Kraft - uh...uh...... OK....

Now that we know how much support Goodell had from owners who either wanted to get back at Kraft for supporting Goodell when THEY got the hammer, or those owners who just wanted to take the Pats down, so their team can do better. Now that we know that Goodell feels that he's been made invulnerable by the CBA and the law that surrounds it. It is easier to see that he just might have made Kraft, "an offer he couldn't refuse" and got him to do what WE think was unthinkable.

This is not an attempt to redeem Kraft, but it is an attempt to possibly explain a decision that heretofore belied explanation

Ken,
This is ridiculous. Belichick was already cleared. Goodell cannot go back in time and change the wells report and then add punishment because Kraft objects.
Goodell is an idiot, not a guy you portray as cunning and domineering.

The other owners told Kraft that protecting the power they have over the players is all that matters, and challenging his punishment sends a message that players can too.

QuantumMechanic · Sep 2, 2015

It's very simple.

Kraft should have availed himself of whatever internal appeal procedures there are. Doesn't matter if they were no-hopers. It's by definition allowed and doing it would have shut down all the "Of course they're guilty -- Kraft didn't even challenge it" types.
When Kraft announced the team would not fight the punishment in court (which I do not disagree with) he SHOULD NOT have rolled over like a gutless, spineless jellyfish. He should have said something like "I am aghast at the ridiculousness of this punishment. We know that we have done nothing wrong and we know that Tom has done nothing wrong. I of course wanted to fight this as much as possible, but my attorneys have made it clear to me that there is no hope of prevailing and that if I tried to challenge this the team could be penalized even more. Therefore, at this time, I am reluctantly choosing to not legally contest the punishment."

RobertWeathers · Sep 2, 2015

Bobsyouruncle said:
I don't buy this. First, the appeal was for the team punishment, not Brady's so there's no owner/player element. He would be appealing his own punishment.

Second, the good of the league argument doesn't wash. Co-owners in business disagree all the time on what's best for business, stockholders disagree with how businesses are run, it doesn't weaken the business. Additionally many franchises have appealed punishments and the league did just fine.

Third, the money angle would mean that Kraft thinks that his fine will somehow be recouped through Goodell's brilliant leadership in a way it wouldn't if he appealed. That's some fuzzy math. It could be argued more convincingly that opposition to the NFL acting foolish is a better financial decision than letting them continue to look stupid. Also the NFL office is an expense to Kraft, he makes money from his team, so allowing the NFL to drag his team through the mud is hardly good for him personally if he's all about the bottom dollar.

You could also say he did it so they go easier on Brady but then you're arguing the other side, that he put a player ahead of his team which undermines the owner/player battle argument.

The last one is the only one that makes any sense even though I don't think it accomplished anything. But I can at least see some logic to it.

I'm not sure if you are arguing against my PoV or someone elses?

Kraft is on record as capitulating for the "Good of the 32"

He later said that he,"Did it because he thought it would help Tom." That may be party true but you can argue his level of sincerity and his motivation was to appease the fan base. I think his real motivation was to get this thing over with so normal business operations could resume at all levels as quickly as possible. There may be an element of "Goody-saving" there too.

The NFL negotiates TV contracts and other revenue-sharing ventures. While it is an expense, Bob derives revenue and profits from such business deals negotiated by the league.

While he may have issues here and there, he is 100% on board with the financial model of the NFL. Seeing that he has benefited personally in the amount of billions, it is foolish to think otherwise.

Bobsyouruncle · Sep 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
I'm not sure if you are arguing against my PoV or someone elses?

Kraft is on record as capitulating for the "Good of the 32"

He later said that he,"Did it because he thought it would help Tom." That may be party true but you can argue his level of sincerity and his motivation was to appease the fan base. I think his real motivation was to get this thing over with so normal business operations could resume at all levels as quickly as possible. There may be an element of "Goody-saving" there too.

The NFL negotiates TV contracts and other revenue-sharing ventures. While it is an expense, Bob derives revenue and profits from such business deals negotiated by the league.

Do you have any evidence or reason to believe that Kraft would lose a slice of the TV contracts or anything else if he appealed?

robertweathers said:
While he may have issues here and there, he is 100% on board with the financial model of the NFL. Seeing that he has benefited personally in the amount of billions, it is foolish to think otherwise.

You are suggesting I am claiming Kraft isn't on board with the NFL's financial model and that an appeal will break that model. You're correct-that would be a foolish position, one that I didn't take. The NFL's financial model will not be effected by a Kraft appeal one way or another as evidenced by all the other appeals ever heard.

I think people are so upset at Kraft they are inventing reasons like greed to explain it. That's possible but to the extent he had some financial gain from not appealing I don't see it. There's better reason to think it was a bad financial decision if only for the direct fine, but also for the loss in value of bad publicity for his own team. And no reason I can think of that he would lose money by an appeal due to some vague loss of cohesiveness in ownership affecting the NFL's revenue.

RobertWeathers · Sep 2, 2015

Bobsyouruncle said:
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe that Kraft would lose a slice of the TV contracts or anything else if he appealed?

I really don't follow where this is coming from. You implied the NFL is a cost center for him. My contention is that it is purposed to make him money. As an owner, he agrees with that structure and the strategic direction of the league. It is always better business for him to have your partners trust that you are working with them and not have an adversarial position towards the league and the commissioner. I'm thinking at a higher-level than losing money on TV deals.

Bobsyouruncle said:
You are suggesting I am claiming Kraft isn't on board with the NFL's financial model and that an appeal will break that model. You're correct-that would be a foolish position, one that I didn't take. The NFL's financial model will not be effected by a Kraft appeal one way or another as evidenced by all the other appeals ever heard.

No. I am saying that Bob is on board with the NFL's financial model and that governs his decision making on team and league matters. I've stated no such thing based with regard to what you do or do not assume.

I haven't mentioned appeals. You have.

Bobsyouruncle said:
I think people are so upset at Kraft they are inventing reasons like greed to explain it. That's possible but to the extent he had some financial gain from not appealing I don't see it. There's better reason to think it was a bad financial decision if only for the direct fine, but also for the loss in value of bad publicity for his own team. And no reason I can think of that he would lose money by an appeal due to some vague loss of cohesiveness in ownership affecting the NFL's revenue.

To be clear, I am not one of those who is "upset" with Kraft. While I don't like them, I understand his business decisions. What he does has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

Bobsyouruncle · Sep 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
I haven't mentioned appeals. You have.

It's the point of the thread. Dan Patrick wants to know why Kraft didn't appeal if he's innocent. You made the case Bob wants to show unity with the owners for a financial reason. You agreed with a post that said it was to show unity against the players. I made the argument that neither of those makes much sense IMO. Or at least the case is so vague (owner cohesion equals more $, appeal equals less cohesion and less $) that I don't think it's sound unless someone can point to something more concrete. It could be blind loyalty to the owners for no financial benefit too.

Obviously we see it different. Have a good afternoon.

RobertWeathers · Sep 2, 2015

Bobsyouruncle said:
It's the point of the thread. Dan Patrick wants to know why Kraft didn't appeal if he's innocent. You made the case Bob wants to show unity with the owners for a financial reason. You agreed with a post that said it was to show unity against the players. I made the argument that neither of those makes much sense IMO. Or at least the case is so vague (owner cohesion equals more $, appeal equals less cohesion and less $) that I don't think it's sound unless someone can point to something more concrete. It could be blind loyalty to the owners for no financial benefit too.

Obviously we see it different. Have a good afternoon.

Thats fine. Good debate.

It sounds like you are still searching for the truth. In the absence of such truth, all we have is what Bob said back in May.

"What I've learned over the last two decades is that the heart and soul of the strength of the NFL is the partnership of 32 teams," Kraft said. "What's become very clear over those two decades is that at no time should the agenda of one team outweigh the collective good of the full 32."

The follow-up question for Bob, what is his idea of collective good?

BradyFTW! · Sep 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
Thats fine. Good debate.

It sounds like you are still searching for the truth. In the absence of such truth, all we have is what Bob said back in May.

The follow-up question for Bob's, what is his idea of collective good?

Is there a specific name for when someone's explicitly stated why they did something, but because it doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you pretend they didn't and continue to baselessly speculate? Because this case has had tons of examples of just that, your example being an especially good one.

Tom Curran interview with Dan Patrick

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Goodell sucks

Similar threads