How big of a concern is the threat of discovery to the NFL in a Brady lawsuit?

[primetime]

However, Brady (and wife) are extremely wealthy people who can comfortably afford the finest lawyers, win or lose.

Extremely wealthy people don't stay extremely wealthy by lighting oodles of money on fire in moonshot lawsuits.

 

[VectorPrime]

Extremely wealthy people don't stay extremely wealthy by lighting oodles of money on fire in moonshot lawsuits.

Brady isn't extremely wealthy on the level of most NFL players. His families wealth transcends that. Say it costs them 5 million dollars, the amount the Wells Report took. That is NOTHING to the Brady/Giselle power team. In ten years time they are going to be at Michael Jordan esque levels of rich, 10 figures easily. A lot of that is dependent on Brady saving his reputation so it's especially important that they invest that money now.

 

[XLIX]

Extremely wealthy people don't stay extremely wealthy by lighting oodles of money on fire in moonshot lawsuits.

Well, I think Tom and Gisele can figure out a way to fit this unique situation into their budget.

They might have to tighten their belts a bit, maybe postpone that family vacation to EPCOT and fewer dinners at Appleby's, but I think a young family struggling to make ends meet has a certain romantic quality to it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well there has been objective damage beyond loss of salary. Brady had a very positive name recognition among celebrities tracked by the advertising industry. This brand image establishes desirability to have a person endorsing the product as well as the value of their endorsments to the client. Brady was in the top 5% of celebrities tracked, after the deflategate accusations he is in the bottom 2%.

For someone of Brady's stature the damage to his brand could cost him more than all his salary from playing football so it is a BFD. His wife is VERY brand conscious.

If the NFL ran a sting and leaked false information damaging to Brady, then covered up the targeting of Brady by NFL execs using the Well's report?

If that is defamation of a persons character I don't know what is.

First of all, we're on the same side when it comes to being appalled and angry at what was done to Brady.

But, the distance between how we feel about this and a viable Defamation suit is great. He would have to demonstrate intent and malice and then quantify his losses. I'm not so dumb as to say that it would be impossible but, as others have observed, it could take years of costly litigation with an uncertain outcome: either prevail or get a jury that didn't see it the way you and I do.

 

[patfanken]

One thing to note that if you win a defamation suit, the loser generally has to pay the legal fees.

 

[varjao]

You are right PT, defamation is a hard claim to succeed....and it should be hard. You also pointed out the 3 hurdles the Brady would have to convince a jury. But rather than being off put by the challenge, you have clearly marked a doable game plan for Brady's lawyers.

1. There was malicious intent by individuals representing the league. Just look at all the league related leaks that occurred that were not only wrong, but came after the league publicly promised there would be no more links. We all know what they were, and there are too many for me to itemize. Even more damaging that what the actively did it's want the League DIDN'T to publically acknowledge the falsehoods when they were uncovered, Maliciousness would be easy to prove.

2. Science is science. The Welles report is littered with bad science and unfounded innuendo.

3. Financial and materiel damages will be the easiest to prove. Just show the jury the Mr Robot clip. And the financial damages should be easy to establish as well.

Based on the hurdles you pointed out PT, this is a winnable case

Regarding item Nº 1, there are still a couple of stupid tweets by Vincent, including that one with a picture of Joe Namath and a quote:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ly-troll-tb12-nfl-still-being-classy.1120195/

These guys were supposed to be fair and not taking sides. What a joke.

 

[XLIX]

First of all, we're on the same side when it comes to being appalled and angry at what was done to Brady.

But, the distance between how we feel about this and a viable Defamation suit is great. He would have to demonstrate intent and malice and then quantify his losses. I'm not so dumb as to say that it would be impossible but, as others have observed, it could take years of costly litigation with an uncertain outcome: either prevail or get a jury that didn't see it the way you and I do.

I looked up the actual standard to demonstrate malice. Most online sources define actual malice as a knowing a statement is false or acting with a "reckless disregard for the truth."

If Kensil, uh I mean "the leaker", knew the 11/12 statement was false, then that sure counts as acting with malice. Furthermore, the online law dictionary defines "reckless disregard for the truth" as:

1: disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source
the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection — Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)
2: a reckless lack of attention to the truth that misleads or deceives another (as a magistrate)

I'm just some guy with an internet connection and too much free time on his hands. I have to think an actual lawyer could make a legit case based on some derivative of the above.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I looked up the actual standard to demonstrate malice. Most online sources define actual malice as a knowing a statement is false or acting with a "reckless disregard for the truth."

If Kensil, uh I mean "the leaker", knew the 11/12 statement was false, then that sure counts as acting with malice. Furthermore, the online law dictionary defines "reckless disregard for the truth" as:

1: disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source
the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection — Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)
2: a reckless lack of attention to the truth that misleads or deceives another (as a magistrate)

I'm just some guy with an internet connection and too much free time on his hands. I have to think an actual lawyer could make a legit case based on some derivative of the above.

If we pay a lawyer enough money, he'll try to make any case we want. That begs the question of its chance of success. As I said in my post, I would not be dumb enough to say it was impossible. It just seems like a huge challenge to me.

 

[patsfan13]

I looked up the actual standard to demonstrate malice. Most online sources define actual malice as a knowing a statement is false or acting with a "reckless disregard for the truth."

If Kensil, uh I mean "the leaker", knew the 11/12 statement was false, then that sure counts as acting with malice. Furthermore, the online law dictionary defines "reckless disregard for the truth" as:

1: disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source
the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection — Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)
2: a reckless lack of attention to the truth that misleads or deceives another (as a magistrate)

I'm just some guy with an internet connection and too much free time on his hands. I have to think an actual lawyer could make a legit case based on some derivative of the above.

Brady and Giesele can afford that lawyer.

 

[Kontradiction]

I honestly think this was a set up with Goodell and his ex-Jet buddies to try and harm the Pats. That said, if the discovery doesn't come out during the court proceedings (and this is going to court... there is no doubt about it), it will come out years later when someone blows the whistle on the whole sham of a process that took place. That said, I honestly don't think it worries Goodell. Why? Goodell is a 'tard.

@mosey threetupu care to weigh in with your opinion on this?

 

[mosey threetupu]

@mosey threetupu care to weigh in with your opinion on this?

Dislike the use of ****** or tard as a slur.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Brady isn't extremely wealthy on the level of most NFL players. His families wealth transcends that. Say it costs them 5 million dollars, the amount the Wells Report took. That is NOTHING to the Brady/Giselle power team. In ten years time they are going to be at Michael Jordan esque levels of rich, 10 figures easily. A lot of that is dependent on Brady saving his reputation so it's especially important that they invest that money now.

Huh?

Even without Gisele's money, only P. Manning among current players is estimated to have a higher individual Net Worth than Brady. The four retired players ahead of him are a current team owner (Jerry Richardson of the Panthers) who played in a few games for the Colts 50 or so years ago, Roger Staubach who made a fortune in Real Estate in Dallas after he retired, John Madden, who made a fortune with his video games, and John Elway.

With Gisele's money, he's in another league, but he ain't doing too poorly on his own.

I'm reluctant to spend anyone else's money for them, so only Brady can do the risk/reward trade-offs of a an expensive litigation. Sure, if he thinks he's likely to prevail, five would probably be a reasonable level for someone in his and Gisele's combined bracket. But people don't become the billionaires that they will ultimately become by throwing that much money away, if they assess that they are not likely to prevail.

 

[BigPeteG]

If we are talking about defamation.. I think people get the standard wrong here. What you need is called 'actual malice' but all this means is that you knowingly publish something that you know is wrong.

The monetary settlement for defamation is pretty small - so lawyers don't exactly jump at the case. But it's not something that impossible for Brady to win IMHO. This idea that the standard is so impossible is overblown...

Not that Brady will go that route though.. Long as the suspension gets revoked - I imagine he would be okay with it.. Seeing how well other athletes have done in court against the NFL - I would be surprised if Tom has much trouble. Arguments to the contrary strike me as FUD from the NFL.

 

[n6249c]

The standard of proof required is different because Brady is a "public figure" so the bar is higher, what is referred to as "New York Times" malice from a court case back in 1964
As a public figure ( versus you or I) you have to show that they knew it was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth...

That's something that could be key. Would the leaking of false and exaggerated low pressure readings, and especially the subsequent failure to correct and imposition of secrecy upon the Patriots about correct readings not constitute "reckless disregard for the truth"?

 

[BelichickFan]

I wish there was a case for the NFL (it's officials) intentionally over inflating the balls for the Jets game. Unlike deflated balls, we have hard evidence, via texts, that the officials inflated the Patriots balls to "almost 16". If we can be punished for perhaps under inflating, why can't we make a damages claim for the NFL over inflating ?

 

[n6249c]

Doesn't the fact that the dolts cried to the league the day before the game and the league did nothing to warn the Patriots of their complaint but then the complaint was circulated around the league office only for them to just remind Anderson to go through the protocols (which he didn't). Then you have a dolts employee illegally gauge a football and run to kensil, who then told a Patriots employee "You're in f*cking trouble".

There is also the fact that SB week blandino on record said that the issue didn't come up until the first half. Literally proof that he knew of the dolts complaint as he made a point to tell Anderson based on the dolts complaint.

Then there is the kicker of it all that the is according to wells whose word is as good as God's the NFL didn't take the complaint seriously yet gardi and kensil saw the complaint and then kensil passed it along to blandino and other other people such as alberto riveron (senior director of officiating) and james daniel (director of game day operations). Which daniel forwarded the complaint to other game operations personnel who would be at the game.

So if they didn't take it seriously why the hell was every NFL official that was going to be at the game made aware of the complaint? Why weren't the Patriots alerted to the dolts complaint? Why have the dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines?

Convenient that dolts balls weren't checked in stereo with the Pats balls and only 4 of them got checked "because of time", they had 10 minutes, according to them someone can deflate 12 footballs in under 90 seconds but they can't check 24 in 10 minutes. And of those 4, 3 of them measured under inflated by one official .

"league did nothing to warn the Patriots" come on, get real. The league had no duty nor reason to warn the Patriots, in fact arguably they would be wrong to warn them. What you are suggesting seems akin to saying the mayor has a duty to warn you your neighbors have accused you of breaking the law, instead of keeping you ignorant while the police investigate. Just does not make any sense.

"dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines" why would it be illegal? That ball was a Patriots ball that had been removed from play. It's not really any different from a fan catching a ball kicked through the uprights into the stands and gauging it, is it?

Face it, it was a sting, a trap. They all (league front office, probably plus execs from a team or two that are jealous and convinced the Patriots could not be so good for so long without cheating) thought the Pats were cheating, again, and that they could catch them and hang them for it. They were wrong, but too deep into it publicly by the time they discovered they were wrong, and they've had to keep doubling down ever since.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Extremely wealthy people don't stay extremely wealthy by lighting oodles of money on fire in moonshot lawsuits.

Agreed. As a public figure, TFB would be wasting $ because of the high requirement of proof. Best to stick with the NFLPA legal strategy.

Now if Goodell or folks in the NYFL front office get frustrated & ignore in house legal advice then say or do something stupid publicly that contradicts fact & shows deliberate malice, I'll revisit this post.

 

[MagicMarker]

Somebody is bluffing here.

Wondering: The NFLPA filed a complaint on behalf of Malcolm Butler regarding OTAs, without his request or permission.

Could Brady make a deal and agree to not pursue it further, but the NFLPA could anyway?

 

[Froob]

"league did nothing to warn the Patriots" come on, get real. The league had no duty nor reason to warn the Patriots, in fact arguably they would be wrong to warn them. What you are suggesting seems akin to saying the mayor has a duty to warn you your neighbors have accused you of breaking the law, instead of keeping you ignorant while the police investigate. Just does not make any sense.

"dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines" why would it be illegal? That ball was a Patriots ball that had been removed from play. It's not really any different from a fan catching a ball kicked through the uprights into the stands and gauging it, is it?

Face it, it was a sting, a trap. They all (league front office, probably plus execs from a team or two that are jealous and convinced the Patriots could not be so good for so long without cheating) thought the Pats were cheating, again, and that they could catch them and hang them for it. They were wrong, but too deep into it publicly by the time they discovered they were wrong, and they've had to keep doubling down ever since.

It is illegal. Teams can't have pumped and gauges on the sidelines and sure as hell can't use them like the Colts did. Colts broke the rules (or cheated so to speak). They should have turned the ball back to the Patriots or the refs.

 

[VectorPrime]

I think its safe to say that you're allowed to break the rules if you have an suspicion that the Patriots might possibly be doing so too.