Tunescribe
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 38,022
- Reaction score
- 48,871
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.But Bisciotti surely appears to have committed tampering in this instance. He can certainly have a desire to reunite with Ngata in the future. He just can’t express that thought publicly with Ngata in a Lions uniform.
If Goodell doesn't hit the Jets with substance, expect tampering to run wild...until a member of the Patriots says something that fits the definition & Goodell abruptly decides to make an example.
Paula Pasche @paulapasche Apr 2
#Lions won't file tampering charges against #Ravens; call it a 'non-issue.' Blog: http://ow.ly/L9bBg
I wonder how the Lions not pursuing tampering charges against the Ravens for their owner basically saying the same exact thing as Woody affects the penalty the Jests will get.
it does not affect it at all. Why would it? The teams are not rivals and the owner of the Lions is ok with the ravens owner remarks.
Woody went beyond what Biscotti said, he mentioned the contract parameters and that they made a mistake in not signing him as a FA the previous year and now they changed their minds and want him back.
A couple of things. My point was that if the Lions come out and say it's not a big deal doesn't that contradict what the Patriots are trying to do by filing tampering charges?
And Biscotti said the exact same thing as Woody in my opinion. He mentioned that Ngata is only under contract for 1 year [/B]and that he is open to bringing him back at the end of the year. That's pretty much the same thing. Both owners stated their wishes to bring back the player to their team while that player was under contract with another team. Contract status and rivalries have nothing to do with the investigation. It matters to us fans but if you read the rule those there is nothing in the rule that covers those things at all. It's either tampering or it's not. Whether they guy has 10 years left on his contract or 2 months, tampering is tampering.
I don't remember Woody announcing contract parameters at that press conference. If you're talking about Mehta's tweet about the contract numbers that sounded like it was from Revis' agent. In my experience 95% of inside info is from agents or players, not from teams.
Ngata- signed contract with lions the WEEK/DAYS PRIOR
Mevis- signed contract 1-YEAR BEFORE.
Ngata-under contract for another YEAR before he will be aFA
Mevis- 2 months away from POSSIBLY being a FA, but theoretically protected from approach from any other team for 13 MONTHS
Not sure what is so hard to figure out about the 2 HUGE SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES, in addition to the content differences of the actual words used (identified by prev posters). The only folks who can equate the two are jester-apologistas.
My bad on that. But that goes even more to my argument saying the situation of the owners comments in rat birds case is completely different from when, where , how woody's comments were made.No I'm just being realistic. Ngata was traded for, not signed, by the Lions.
I think there has been some confusion about the tampering rule. It doesn't matter when a player is to become a FA when it comes to tampering. There are two levels or tampering. The lightest form of tampering is the "public statement of interest". The most severe kind of tampering is "contact with a player or agent while he's under contract with another team". So there is no situational difference. Both are under contract with different teams. The term of the contract means nothing, .....
I honestly think that the Lions announcing to the world that they don't think what the Ravens owner said was a big deal gives the NFL an out to not punish the Jests or to punish them lightly. That's all I'm suggesting. .....