Court denies Brady a re-hearing!!!

jimnance said:

From what ive heard, sounds like the SC would decide on whether or not to hear the case somewhere between late october-late november. If thats the case, i would bet the farm that TB will decide to serve the 4 game suspension at the start of the season, while still pursuing justice at the SC. hed do that because he wouldnt want to run the risk of the SC announcing in late nov. that they denied the request to hear the case. or worse, what if the SC doesnt decide until dec.? playoff run in jeopardy and the rest of the nfl gets what they wanted. i think the only way TB doesnt sit first 4 games is either SC makes their decision before game 1(highly unlikely), or his legal team tells him theres a high probability SC wont decide on whether or not to hear case until after the SB.(also seems unlikely). So if im a betting man, id make two wagers and go all in on both:1. TB is sitting out the first 4. 2. TB is still pursuing justice at the SC( but wont risk hurting the team by possibly facing 4 game suspenion in dec-jan-feb, when it matters.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately two Appellate Judges found that the NFLPA gave the Commissioner powers under the CBA that were broad enough to encompass such bad behavior and there wasn't a majority of Active Judges on CA2 who thought it was worth rehearing the case in light of that finding.

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

From what ive heard, sounds like the SC would decide on whether or not to hear the case somewhere between late october-late november. If thats the case, i would bet the farm that TB will decide to serve the 4 game suspension at the start of the season, while still pursuing justice at the SC. hed do that because he wouldnt want to run the risk of the SC announcing in late nov. that they denied the request to hear the case. or worse, what if the SC doesnt decide until dec.? playoff run in jeopardy and the rest of the nfl gets what they wanted. i think the only way TB doesnt sit first 4 games is either SC makes their decision before game 1(highly unlikely), or his legal team tells him theres a high probability SC wont decide on whether or not to hear case until after the SB.(also seems unlikely). So if im a betting man, id make two wagers and go all in on both:1. TB is sitting out the first 4. 2. TB is still pursuing justice at the SC( but wont risk hurting the team by possibly facing 4 game suspenion in dec-jan-feb, when it matters.

Click to expand...

Ian said:

I'm not a fan of loading this place up with affiliate links, which is probably to my detriment but since this is a community, it's something I've really tried to limit since a lot of the traffic is from people who visit each day. As a matter of fact, the newer version of here that I'm working on is going to condense a lot of that, primarily to make it load quicker and to make for an overall better experience for people

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

From what ive heard, sounds like the SC would decide on whether or not to hear the case somewhere between late october-late november. If thats the case, i would bet the farm that TB will decide to serve the 4 game suspension at the start of the season, while still pursuing justice at the SC. hed do that because he wouldnt want to run the risk of the SC announcing in late nov. that they denied the request to hear the case. or worse, what if the SC doesnt decide until dec.? playoff run in jeopardy and the rest of the nfl gets what they wanted. i think the only way TB doesnt sit first 4 games is either SC makes their decision before game 1(highly unlikely), or his legal team tells him theres a high probability SC wont decide on whether or not to hear case until after the SB.(also seems unlikely). So if im a betting man, id make two wagers and go all in on both:1. TB is sitting out the first 4. 2. TB is still pursuing justice at the SC( but wont risk hurting the team by possibly facing 4 game suspenion in dec-jan-feb, when it matters.

Click to expand...

varjao said:

The Pats/Brady as a whole went to soft since day 1 when they were already convicted since this was a setup.

Should have answered aggressively, maybe the perception would be different and after judge Berman's rulling NFL would settle. That fake numbers they released and then they demanded the Patriots to not release the real numbers, this has been for so long I don't even remember when that happened, that was absolutely unbelievable how the Pats/Kraft accepted that.

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

Brady isn't going to serve the suspension unless he is denied the stay by the SC. They decision for the stay would be made a lot sooner than October-November. The October-November decision would just be whether or not SCOTUS would be willing to hear arguments. Then it would be added to the docket based on what is already ahead of the case..

Further, I suggest you look at Quantum's post for a more accurate timetable.
Court denies Brady a re-hearing!!!

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately two Appellate Judges found that the NFLPA gave the Commissioner powers under the CBA that were broad enough to encompass such bad behavior and there wasn't a majority of Active Judges on CA2 who thought it was worth rehearing the case in light of that finding.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

That's not a reasonable way out.

If I'm a Supreme Court Justice, you'd basically be telling me that you've accepted the penalty to minimize the damages because you're anticipating that I'm likely to refuse to hear the case anyway. In essence, I'd think that you don't have any more skin in the game, since you've already restructured your contract to make the total financial hit somewhere around $200,000 when you have a nine figure net worth.

My inclination would be to look at a large stack of cases where people have skin in the game and tell you to **** off. In other words: this is a situation of, "you can't be half pregnant." You're either appealing to the SC or you're not.

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

You misread my post. of course the SC stay has to be granted before game 1. uh,duh. i said the SC oct-nov. decision was whether or not theyd hear the case. Lets assume SC grants stay and fast -forward to 1 week before game1- if olson tells tom theres a good chance SC denies petition to hear case-and that it likely will happen late in the season-Tom will decide to serve suspension but still pursue case. doesnt weaken his case at all.

Click to expand...

libra957 said:

I'm getting sick of this crap.i'm thinking Brady sits. 4 games less is probably good for a 39 year old qb. Sometimes we gotta make a positive out of a negative.

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

I didn't mis-read anything. You just don't understand the process at all.
SCOTUS will not grant a stay unless they feel that there is a good chance they will hear the petition.
Please do yourself a favor and read the post from Quantum.

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

Totally disagree. Its the most reasonable way out. Has nothing to do with $. has everything to do with hurting the team-which would irreparably hurt Tom-could lose playoff $, but more importantly-his reputation would be badly harmed-he would be considered selfish for putting his own interests above the team. you just cant compare TBs case with other cases that dont involve athletes. theyre apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

You're right: I think we "totally disagree" on this. I stated my reasoning in my earlier post and can't be any clearer. So, we'll just have to disagree.

Click to expand...

IcyPatriot said:

If Brady sits 4 games I believe Belichick will sign a veteran 3rd QB behind Grop and IR Jacoby. No way if Grop gets hurt or obtains tremendous trade value can Jacoby be our backup option for this year ... not with this loaded team. The kid will need time to become a pocket ... 3 step drop ... and/or quick pass type QB.

Click to expand...