Kraft: Walsh doesn't have jack

[Funktopus]

There ya go Kraft....Get the Pats side out there. Anyone think some comments like this were wat overdue.

I do. Maybe the pats are changing their tactics so that anytime the media is sufficiently concentrated, the pats organization will go on the offensive with something. When's the next NFL gathering? the draft? Maybe, Krafty will have something for the media then too.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That isn't a fact. The fact is that there is currently no evidence of a taping of the Rams superbowl by the Patriots. That's it. That is the fact. Could something come out in the future? Sure anything is possible. But another fact is that Goodell conducted and actual investigation in the matter and discovered NO evidence to that accusation. Those are the pertinent fact.

Wait, I thought it wasn't possible for the JEST to not suck.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

I don't think the Colts fan is doing anything wrong. He's just reserving judgement for when all the facts come out. There's nothing wrong with that. At least he's not being the typical Colts troll who throws accusations at the team with none of the facts available. I'd take him over them.

No he's not. He is giving Walsh some degree of credibility by inferring all he
has done is not turn over the evidence. Not that there might not be evidence.
So troll boy has his agenda and you are falling for it.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Because like most people on here I'm a sports fan.. And enjoy talking to other sports fans.. That is true that he hasn't turned anything in.. But here it is.. Look, here comes my point.. That by no means is evidence that he has nothing.. The only thing that says is he hasn't turned anything over. We can make all the assumptions we want, but why? It's a waste of time. Just go with the FACTS that we know, it's much easier.. Just like using WHAT IF'S..It's pointless.

You're using a WHAT IF by assuming he has anything. The FACTS are this: there is currently NO evidence of ANYTHING.

The FACT is you're speculating, which is pointless and a waste of time.

 

[vyrago]

No tape to Kraft's knowledge.. He doesn't KNOW.. He's just assuming.. Since it's been two months.. Which he has every right to do so.. But it's just one guys assumption..

Can't think at stuff like this in a biased way.. This is legal material and not just sports. That's why I said you can't tell now a days.. Too many people lie and for most of the time no reason for the lie.. Did Kraft lie about him not having anything? Or did Walsh make up having tapes? WE don't know yet. So don't jump on me for seeing it straight.

Huh?? I'd be more impressed if you could say it straight.

 

[captain stone]

I agree with NYCPatsFan and my reason is it's VERY important to me that this is presented as having broken a rule as opposed to use usual Spying or Cheating crap. As we all know we collected information that every team collects, we just did it in violation of a rule.

We were speeding, charged with drunk driving and penalized for vehicular homocide.

Very well put.

Hate the haters.

 

[fair catch fryar]

No tape to Kraft's knowledge.. He doesn't KNOW.. He's just assuming.. Since it's been two months.. Which he has every right to do so.. But it's just one guys assumption..




As a fan outside of the inner circles of NFL insiders, I can assume anything I want about the topic, but the guy who signs the checks of every employee within his organization is far from assuming. You might say that he has some inside information on the subject

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wait, I thought it wasn't possible for the JEST to not suck.

The whole league is built on the premise that any given Sunday, any given team can beat the New York JEST

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Given that Kraft knows more than anybody at this point about what was and wasn't done within his organization, I think the likeliest read of this is that he's 100% certain that Walsh is a non-factor.

There is an outside chance as well that he knows he will be dealing with something, and would prefer to get it all out there in the offseason, so he's goading Walsh.

He is correct. Unless Walsh wishes to preserve his right to fabricate statements, there is no more deal he needs to get.

PFnV

 

[Kontradiction]

No he's not. He is giving Walsh some degree of credibility by inferring all he
has done is not turn over the evidence. Not that there might not be evidence.
So troll boy has his agenda and you are falling for it.

And who are you (or anybody else in this thread) to say that Walsh DOESN'T have any evidence? Have you ever thought that Walsh may actually be protecting himself by any insuing lawsuits from the Patriots AND the league? I'm reserving judgement myself. It doesn't mean I don't love the Pats, because I do. But if you're saying that I'm buying what he's saying, then I'm saying that you love the Pats so much that you're blinded by anything bad that might be said about them.

 

[pats1]

No tape to Kraft's knowledge.. He doesn't KNOW.. He's just assuming.. Since it's been two months.. Which he has every right to do so.. But it's just one guys assumption..

Can't think at stuff like this in a biased way.. This is legal material and not just sports. That's why I said you can't tell now a days.. Too many people lie and for most of the time no reason for the lie.. Did Kraft lie about him not having anything? Or did Walsh make up having tapes? WE don't know yet. So don't jump on me for seeing it straight.

"Just one guy's opinion."

Yeah, I know. "Just" the owner of the team.

 

[upstater1]

And who are you (or anybody else in this thread) to say that Walsh DOESN'T have any evidence? Have you ever thought that Walsh may actually be protecting himself by any insuing lawsuits from the Patriots AND the league? I'm reserving judgement myself. It doesn't mean I don't love the Pats, because I do. But if you're saying that I'm buying what he's saying, then I'm saying that you love the Pats so much that you're blinded by anything bad that might be said about them.

He has already lied about what he did on that day, and that lie exposed him.

Evidence #1: He says he took a press bus to and from the Rams' walkthrough. The NFL looked into its records and is 100% certain there was no press bus for the private walkthrough.

Evidence #2: Walsh said he never taped conversations of himself and Pioli, and his lawyer called Pioli a liar. Pioli responded that he confiscated tapes of Walsh doing this and he still has them.

 

[castlelong1]

He said, he said.. Very tough to tell anything these days..

No it is page #1 He said and page c42 he said.

Don't believe me? Find Kraft's quote in a "national" media source, then tell me how it was reported as opposed to "Walsh settlement near."

 

[flasox27]

There is nothing like having a thief and liar and prospective convict for your star source. I am thinking that Spector, Tomase, Fish and Easterbrook aren't relishing the fact that Walsh is getting demolished.:rocker:

 

[nepatz11]

He said, he said.. Very tough to tell anything these days..

actually he said a lot of what you said. It is a "he said, he said" but the bottom line is any idiot can say anything in this day and age and the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week media will pikc it up and go overboard with it. It is about substantiation and Walsh has provided NONE thus far and it has been a really long time for that.

 

[castlelong1]

No tape to Kraft's knowledge.. He doesn't KNOW.. He's just assuming.. Since it's been two months.. Which he has every right to do so.. But it's just one guys assumption..

Can't think at stuff like this in a biased way.. This is legal material and not just sports. That's why I said you can't tell now a days.. Too many people lie and for most of the time no reason for the lie.. Did Kraft lie about him not having anything? Or did Walsh make up having tapes? WE don't know yet. So don't jump on me for seeing it straight.

OK, I've posted this hypothetical conversation before and should be obvious, but...

Scenario #1 Matt Walsh has a tape and releases it:

BB (or whomever): We'll sue you for stealing property.
MW: So you admit it is yours. I thought you were claiming I taped the walk through on my own.
BB: I mean we will sue you for slander saying we told you to do that.
MW: When you get any quote of me saying that, not just the people I'm with inferring it, my lawyer would like a copy for my counter suit for you calling me a liar.

Scenario #2 Matt Walsh has a tape but does not release it.
Matt Walsh: I have a tape of the Rams walk through.
BB: Crennel, Weiss, Mangini, and no other coaches claim to have seen it.
MW: Nevertheless, I have it.
BB: liar, liar pants on fire
MW: stick and stones...
BB: we'll tar you.
MW: I'm rubber and you are glue...
BB: If you have a tape release it.
MW: No.

Scenario#3 Matt Walsh does not have a tape (releasing it is not an option)
MW:I have a tape.
BB: No you don't.
MW: I do too.
BB: Why don't you release it?
MW: I'm afraid of your lawyers.
BB: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, release the tape if you have it.
MW: You will claim it violates a secrecy agreement.
BB: You didn't sign a secrecy agreement.
MW: Have your people talk to my people and if the lawyers are OK, I'll release it.

Pick which scenario you think fits the facts.

I think #2 is silly, but guys watching ESPN think it is reasonable.

 

[castlelong1]

Because like most people on here I'm a sports fan.. And enjoy talking to other sports fans.. That is true that he hasn't turned anything in.. But here it is.. Look, here comes my point.. That by no means is evidence that he has nothing.. The only thing that says is he hasn't turned anything over. We can make all the assumptions we want, but why? It's a waste of time. Just go with the FACTS that we know, it's much easier.. Just like using WHAT IF'S..It's pointless.

OK
BB: Release it.
MW: No.
BB: Release it.
MW: No.
BB: Release it.
MW: No.

OK. this is behavior of a guy with "it."

Don't bogart that joint.

 

[castlelong1]

Immunity from a libel/slander suit would be my guess.

...

Immunity would mean he could say anything. He saw Belichick put psychoactive drugs in the Rams Gatorade would be safe.

For this tape he doesn't need immunity. Truth is an absolute defense against libel/slander.

He may want immunity from stealing team property, which curiously unleaked in the story about how close they were. Odd that.

 

[castlelong1]

And who are you (or anybody else in this thread) to say that Walsh DOESN'T have any evidence? Have you ever thought that Walsh may actually be protecting himself by any insuing lawsuits from the Patriots AND the league? I'm reserving judgement myself. It doesn't mean I don't love the Pats, because I do. But if you're saying that I'm buying what he's saying, then I'm saying that you love the Pats so much that you're blinded by anything bad that might be said about them.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I call deeply closeted guy gay and can prove he really is gay in court, I'm golden against libel/slander. Yes, he can have bank of lawyers and I can represent myself and present the tape of him making out with a guy.

Kraft just handed him an out if he really did sign a confidentiality agreement. I doubt he would do that if there really was one.

The only possible thing he can be afraid of is the stolen property thing. That negotiation has had leaks, but I don't remember reading that was the only hold up.

If it is but for some reason was not leaked, remember that truth is an absolute defense versus libel/slander. On Kraft's side you'd have whatever lawyers he had in the room saying it was never mentioned vs. Walsh, Levy (A Harvard and Yale cum laude guy) and a US Senator. Guess who wins.

Walsh has two days to produce something, either a "leak" of negotiations or the tape.