Brady's legal team expands

captain insano said:

you should read exactly what it means. its means they will appeal to the clowns that ruled against abrady. and it means if that fails they will ask the supremes to hear the case. this is about labor law more than anything else. olson has tried many cases in front of the supreme court. olson increases the chance that an appeal gets heard.

Click to expand...

Rusty Griswold said:

Why is it a longshot? Last year, my sister, who has no clue about the NFL, said "why doesn't Brady just take the punishment?"

I said "It goes deeper than that."

And, here we are.

Click to expand...

Rusty Griswold said:

Why is it a longshot? Last year, my sister, who has no clue about the NFL, said "why doesn't Brady just take the punishment?"

I said "It goes deeper than that."

And, here we are.

I think people like Lester Munson, and the other legal bozo on ESPN, along with others, who know ESPN's billion dollar deal with the NFL for MNF, are not understanding what we're talking about here.

This is a CBA situation, with a bully (the NFL) trying to lie and paint a picture that isn't real, for easier long term financial gain.

This is supplemental to this Deflategate thing, but ask yourself this:

1. Why did Goodell lie about Ray Rice? Why did he lie TWICE? The entire country saw it, but why would he try so hard to work with the union on such an easy decision that I am sure the union felt awkward even arguing?

You know why? A 9.5 million cap hit in 2015 if Rice was cut in 2014. That's 30 million on the books between Flacco and Ray Rice in 2015, and RIce wasn't even there.

What team has given NE some issues in the AFC in the postseason? The Ravens.

2. What is Goodell's sales pitch London investors? There is only one: PARITY

3. Why has Jacksonville been such a featured team in London. They're terrible.

Why?

Because Kahn doesn't get the ROI needed in the current CBA, which is a boon if you have a good market, good team and good tv contracts.

Jacksonville has a 20 year old out of date stadium, no sell outs, no home games in the playoffs, and even though Londoners probably can't sustain an NFL product there, he knows a tv deal in London with sponsors is worth more there than in Jacksonville.

Jacksonville plays in the AFC.

Jax just signed up for 6 more years to play in London, the only team to do that. Odd, isn't it? You're trying to sell the product and you want Jax to do it? Hmm.

If you do the math, Jacksonville is moving to London. I read Dan Rooney say Goodell was doing a good job and "hitting his measurables"...

Once I read that, I knew it meant getting a team in London.

Here's the catch: A current team HAS TO MOVE TO LONDON. Why? Because ya can't sell 2 new teams, expansion teams right now, because there aren't enough quality FAs past the age of 30, like there was in 1994 when the cap started (in 1993).

No real investor is going to take a risk on investing in the Jaguars in London as a team if they stink and if there is no parity, and especially if they play in the same Conference as the Pats.

NE goes to its 6th straight COnf Title game this year barring major injuries. Heck, the Pats went to the 2013 and 2015 title games with major injuries and no business even getting there.

This is historical, but the cap was created not only for the players, but to block dynasties and to have a balanced revenue spread throughout the league. The Pats block that from being a reality.

This whole thing, including Spygate, is about framing a lie to the public to be able to weaken the Patriots, to keep parity and expand into Europe so Goodell can go from 44 million per year, to 88 million per year.

These are not coincidences. This is a multi billion dollar operation.

Click to expand...

BradyFTW! said:

Honestly, I'm kinda surprised that the league hasn't dismissed the suspension on its own. It now has the second circuit on record as saying that Goodell can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, up to and including breaking labor law, and they won't do anything about it. They've also established a process by which they can ensure that any future arbitration disagreement end up being argued in the second circuit.

Seems like enough of a win that they should eliminate any incentive for Brady to continue the fight, purely on the slim chance that he gets an en banc appeal or makes it to the SCOTUS and wins.

If I was commissioner, I would drop Brady's suspension yesterday, and make a statement to the effect of "while I am pleased that the second circuit has affirmed my authority as both commissioner and arbitrator in all cases relating to the integrity of the game, I also wish to extend a hand in cooperation to the players' association and the Patriots organization. While I stand by the Wells Report, I have decided to reduce Tom Brady's punishment to the maximum fine allowable under the collective bargaining agreement". Then again, if I was the commissioner none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place, because this was a ridiculous case and a witch hunt from day one.

Click to expand...

Ivan said:

I agree but I thought Johnson was a great choice, he just doesn't have the name gravitas of Clement, Olsen, or a David Boies.

Click to expand...

BradyFTW! said:

From what I understand, yeah, if the Supreme Court was to take the case it wouldn't be heard and decided before the end of the 2016 season.

Click to expand...

juny said:

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

The most important thing is that it wouldn't be heard until after HRC is elected along with a Democratic Senate after The Donald takes his party down in flames. Then it will be 5--4 or even 6--3 if Kennedy goes along.

Click to expand...

SlowGettingUp said:

I really don't see the justification for all the excitement here. He needed to hire Olsen for the appeal, not now when there is very little he can do. Both en banc and cert. are very much long shots and there is very little Olsen can do to change that. (And yes, once upon a time at least some decades back, I was actually a practicing attorney).

I still maintain a 60 Minutes expose is Brady's best shot at redemption.

Click to expand...

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

I may be talking out of my ass here, but I strongly suspect the political pull of these big, hot shot lawyers can make a difference regarding whether cert is granted or not. No one would ever publicly admit that this is true, however.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

They had one in Johnson, but Kessler won the battle of egos and had a chance to prove that The Peter Principle indeed still holds.

Click to expand...

DefenseRules said:

THIS IS A WAR

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

Was that really the reason it was Kessler as LC?

Was this seriously a Cochran v Shapiro pee-pee measuring contest?

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

Incredible.....

In January of 2015, all Goody had to do was slap TB12 with a $8500 parking ticket and this would have been over.

...now we have Missiles of October.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

It's the only rational explanation, as otherwise why would you hire one of the top Appellate Counsels in the country and then leave him essentially as window dressing?

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

The most important thing is that it wouldn't be heard until after HRC is elected along with a Democratic Senate after The Donald takes his party down in flames. Then it will be 5--4 or even 6--3 if Kennedy goes along.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

Well, his first move suggests that it's heading in that direction.

He's a "Take No Prisoners" kind of guy who helped hand the WH to GWB.

He's asked for two extra weeks in order "to consult with the Player Representatives" as to whether the NFLPA and Brady should request an en banc hearing. That suggests that he is going to try to turn this into a war between the Players and the League, beyond Brady.

Also, sends a signal to the Eighth Circuit CA that "now might be a good time to issue your ruling" in the AP case.

Click to expand...