Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

Patsfanin Philly said:

A President can only pardon for Federal offenses but there is no love lost between Trump and the NFL ( remember the USFL) and he could make life very miserable for the league........in a host of ways...

Click to expand...

How? I can see Congress making life miserable for the NFL, but what could a President do in the pursuit of his/her normal course of duties?

Other than just comment on it randomly, which would be embarrassing to the NFL but hardly cause a dip in their financial momentum and fortunes.

patsfan7983 said:

Is there any chance in this circus that Brady will not have to sit out the first 4 games? SCOTUS will take a long time, right?

Click to expand...

He needs to get the en banc hearing for that to be a possibility. Not sure of that timeline.

betterthanthealternative said:

How? I can see Congress making life miserable for the NFL, but what could a President do in the pursuit of his/her normal course of duties?

Other than just comment on it randomly, which would be embarrassing to the NFL but hardly cause a dip in their financial momentum and fortunes.

Click to expand...

Plus Donald has a little bit of a history with the NFL and it's not a pleasant one.

Triumph said:

Like demanding that the Pats have their draft picks returned to them?

Click to expand...

No.

robertweathers said:

He needs to get the en banc hearing for that to be a possibility. Not sure of that timeline.

Click to expand...

Take this for what it's worth, which is likely not much: Greenberg on Mike and Mike made an NFL prediction, among others, yesterday that Brady would play all 16 regular season games this season. A few minutes ago he elaborated, saying that legal people have told him that the Brady case is far from over and that the granting of an en banc was more likely than not and likely to happen. He cited Chin's granting of the 14 day extension as the first evidence that it'll likely happen. This is so different from what I've heard from McCann and others that I wonder where the truth lies. I'm strongly inclined to defer to McCann et al, but I like Greenberg's take better. Just interesting, particularly coming from that clown and his show.

robertweathers said:

He needs to get the en banc hearing for that to be a possibility. Not sure of that timeline.

Click to expand...

No he doesn't. If CA2 refused the en banc hearing that does not prevent the NFLPA from asking SCOTUS to hear the case (plenty -- a big majority -- of cases SCOTUS hears do not go through en banc review).

If CA2 rejects the request then presumably the NFLPA will petition SCOTUS for certiorari. That alone won't prevent Brady from being suspended this year. SCOTUS could easily reject the petition before the start of the season.

But if SCOTUS grants the petition it is highly unlikely Brady is suspended for any part of the 2016 season or playoffs. SCOTUS has already been adding cases to its 2016-17 term, so if the NFLPA case is heard I have to think it'd be argued no earlier than late 2016 or early 2017 so there's no way a decision comes down before the postseason is over.

betterthanthealternative said:

How? I can see Congress making life miserable for the NFL, but what could a President do in the pursuit of his/her normal course of duties?

Other than just comment on it randomly, which would be embarrassing to the NFL but hardly cause a dip in their financial momentum and fortunes.

Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head, executive actions and ordering Federal agencies to take action ( quasi administrative not subject to Congressional oversight) of the kind taken by the EPA.... Without getting political, some could argue that Tea Party groups have had their lives made miserable by IRS audits and delays in getting non profit status approval.. My point is that the power of the Presidency can make life miserable if they desire to do so...

Jackson 2 said:

Take this for what it's worth, which is likely not much: Greenberg on Mike and Mike made an NFL prediction, among others, yesterday that Brady would play all 16 regular season games this season. A few minutes ago he elaborated, saying that legal people have told him that the Brady case is far from over and that the granting of an en banc was more likely than not and likely to happen. He cited Chin's granting of the 14 day extension as the first evidence that it'll likely happen. This is so different from what I've heard from McCann and others that I wonder where the truth lies. I'm strongly inclined to defer to McCann et al, but I like Greenberg's take better. Just interesting, particularly coming from that clown and his show.

Click to expand...

Why did the grant come from Chin?

QuantumMechanic said:

No he doesn't. If CA2 refused the en banc hearing that does not prevent the NFLPA from asking SCOTUS to hear the case (plenty -- a big majority -- of cases SCOTUS hears do not go through en banc review).

If CA2 rejects the request then presumably the NFLPA will petition SCOTUS for certiorari. That alone won't prevent Brady from being suspended this year. SCOTUS could easily reject the petition before the start of the season.

But if SCOTUS grants the petition it is highly unlikely Brady is suspended for any part of the 2016 season or playoffs. SCOTUS has already been adding cases to its 2016-17 term, so if the NFLPA case is heard I have to think it'd be argued no earlier than late 2016 or early 2017 so there's no way a decision comes down before the postseason is over.

Click to expand...

Yes. I was more specifically talking to the potential delay if it goes to en banc but you eloaborated on the process. Wasn't 100% sure of that as I am not a lawyer.

Certainly if it goes to SCOTUS we are talking a major delay in the suspension.

Wax Frog said:

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist any longer

Click to expand...

I like it, i like it a lot

QuantumMechanic said:

No.

Click to expand...

I was seriuos.

Why is the Peterson case taking so long when the Brady case was ruled on so quickly?

robertweathers said:

Why did the grant come from Chin?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I simply read that he was the judge who granted it. I suppose it's possible that he was simply the messenger. Not sure.

Jackson 2 said:

Take this for what it's worth, which is likely not much: Greenberg on Mike and Mike made an NFL prediction, among others, yesterday that Brady would play all 16 regular season games this season. A few minutes ago he elaborated, saying that legal people have told him that the Brady case is far from over and that the granting of an en banc was more likely than not and likely to happen. He cited Chin's granting of the 14 day extension as the first evidence that it'll likely happen. This is so different from what I've heard from McCann and others that I wonder where the truth lies. I'm strongly inclined to defer to McCann et al, but I like Greenberg's take better. Just interesting, particularly coming from that clown and his show.

Click to expand...

Is interesting. Greenberg generally blows....whichever way the wind goes.

robertweathers said:

Certainly if it goes to SCOTUS we are talking a major delay in the suspension.

Click to expand...

If they appeal to SCOTUS and they reject hearing it, does anyone know how long that would take ? Even deciding not to hear a case can take a while.

Clonamery said:

Is interesting. Greenberg generally blows....whichever way the wind goes.

Click to expand...

Yes, and a case in point is Greenberg admitting that last Friday he, like most other observers, opined that it was all over for Brady, case close, etc., and that over the weekend his legal sources basically said, "Not so fast." So, who knows?

The most interesting aspect of this to me is whether or not the league changes their tune and offers Brady a deal he can't refuse rather than risk seeing this overturned. The league has so much to lose at this Point that they would be wise to do so. As things stand Goodells powers under article 46 are as broad as they can be, and that represents a big bargaining chip for them with the NFLPA, one they can horsetrade for the one thing the owners and Goodell want more than anything, and the one thing the players absolutely don't want----- an 18 game season. This will ultimately mean billions of dollars in future revenues for the owners and last time they tried the players said they would never go along with it. Goodell actually said in one of his victory lap interviews that if the union wanted to make a deal that reduced his powers the owners would be willing to make a deal and I think this was what he was referring to, he's no longer judge, jury, and executioner and the preseason gets cut to two games and regular season increased to 18. There would still be other issues to resolve to accomplish this but the owners would have gotten over their biggest hurdle, player approval. As it stands right now the owners have that bargaining chip, but if the Brady decision gets overturned again they will have lost their biggest chip. It will be interesting to see if there's a push to settle this, but I think ther owners will wait to see if en banc is granted first, if it is they may try to cut the deal to preserve the ruling.

Ivan said:

The most interesting aspect of this tip me is whether or not the league changes their tune and offers Brady a deal he can't refuse rather than risk setting this overturned. The league has so much to lose at this Point that they would be wise to do so. As things stand Goodells powers under article 46 are as broad as they can be, and that represents a big bargaining chip for them with the NFLPA, one they can horsetrade for the one thing the owners and Goodell want note than anything and the one thing the players absolutely don't want----- an 18 game season. This will ultimately mean billions of dollars in future revenues for the owners and last time they tried the players said they would never go along with. Goodell actually said in one of his victory lap interviews that if the union wanted to make a deal that reduced his powers the owners would be willing to make a deal and I think this was what he was referring to, he's no longer judge, jury, and executioner and the preseason gets cut to two games and regular season increased to 18. There would still be other issues to resolve to accomplish this but the owners would have gotten over their biggest hurdle, player approval. As it stands right now the owners have that bargaining chip, but if the Brady decision gets overturned again they will have lost their biggest chip. It will be interesting to see if there's a push to settle this, but I think ther owners will wait to see if en banc is granted first, if it is they may try to cut the deal to preserve the ruling.

Click to expand...

The best ending for all, as you said, is the league to rescind the suspension and Brady to drop the appeal. It's over for Brady, the NFL preserves it's win in court. Both win. As it stands, either one could lose. Of course the NFLPA may not be too happy about taking the loss.

SVN said:

Probably because clement and olson have 'sparred' before and clement has won ?

Click to expand...

I've argued plenty of cases in the 11th Circuit down here in Atlanta and I can guarantee you this is the way it went down. Olson's firm asked Clement's firm for a 14 day extension and Clement was happy to give it. Why? It's not just common courtesy; it's self-interest. This time they need the extension; next time you'll need the extension. You fight tooth and nail over the big stuff but not something as silly as a 2 week extension. It's literally about the most trivial request one lawyer can make to another.

Only, Clement has to run it by his client, the NFL, and get their permission and Goodell and his henchmen said no. I can guarantee you Clement tried to talk them into giving it, because it was a virtual certainty it was going to be granted anyway, and it just makes you look petty and stupid to the Court. But the NFL, in their typical moronic, tone deaf way, refused to grant even the most simple request, no matter how it makes them look to the Court.

None of this means the en banc hearing will be granted, only that the thugs on Park Ave are determined to continue acting as idiotically as possible.

reflexblue said:

I like it, i like it a lot

Click to expand...

All I need is a "useful" from Tunescribe and my joy will be complete