League in the process of granting legal indemnification to walsh

[JDSal45]

i'm not a lawyer, but as far as i know, the league could only indemnify him against penalties that the league could impose. the league could not indemnify him against legal charges brought by the state or federal government nor could it indemnify him against breaches of his contract with the Patriots. So, I don't know what this is all about, unless the league is agreeing to hold walsh harmless in the event that the patriots sue him under that contract.

No, that isn't true. They could indemnify him (promise to pay) any civilly awarded amounts he is ordered to pay as a result of talking to them, no matter who it is he is ordered to pay it to.

J D Sal

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

i'm not a lawyer, but as far as i know, the league could only indemnify him against penalties that the league could impose. the league could not indemnify him against legal charges brought by the state or federal government nor could it indemnify him against breaches of his contract with the Patriots. So, I don't know what this is all about, unless the league is agreeing to hold walsh harmless in the event that the patriots sue him under that contract.

You are confusing immunity and indemnify.

Immunity prevents you from being prosecuted criminally. That is not what this is about.

Indemnity means to reimburse for lost money. Walsh has said he is worried that if he talks he sued by the Patriots for violating the confidentiality agreement and is worried they could take away his 401k. Godell is saying that if he talks and is sued. The NFL will pick up the tap for Walsh's legal bills and if the Patriots are successful in their suit will pay the award, pay him what his 401k is worth etc.

 

[Metaphors]

I don't see how the Patriots come out ahead in that scenario you described. Believe it or not, BB (and the Patriots) don't have a lot of credibility with the media or fans right now, so something tells me that if Walsh says something and BB denies it, people aren't going to say "Oh well, BB denied it, let's move along". Giving this guy credence and a voice is bad news for the Patriots, even if everything he says is bogus and he has no proof.

They come out ahead by ending this as a news story. The goal isn't to change public opinion...that ship has sailed. Can Easterbrook hate the Pats any more? Can Steve Young be more frustrated with the Pats organization? Can Tom Jackson have a larger stick up his arse when discussing the Pats? You see where I am going...

My point was that the Pats need to get to the penalty phase as quickly as possible. Unless Walsh has video of Belichick asking for an illicit activity (beyond what they've already admitted to and been punished for) or receiving the bounty of an illicit activity, Walsh has nada.

Goodell needs Kraft in the weeks ahead. It is foolish to believe Kraft didn't sign off on the original punishment (which is the real reason why the tapes were destroyed). Kraft wouldn't stand for any punishment, even a mild public scolding, based on anything Walsh has or says unless it is air tight.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This could be a good thing.

Indemnity is not a complicated concept. If A has a claim against B, C can come in and say, "I'll indemnify you." Which basically means it will pay any judgment A obtains. It also may mean it will pay for legal fees.

What very well could be happending here is that Walsh is trying to hide behind a supposed confidentiality provision in his separation agreement.

That is, he's suggesting he knows stuff, but then when it comes time to answer questions, he defers, "oh, I can't answer because I'm afraid I'll get sued."

What the league is doing here is calling his bluff. Saying, "ok, we'll remove that obstacle."

It's similar to what the prosecutors did to Barry Bonds for his grand jury testimony. He said he wouldn't testify because he didn't want to incriminate himself. They said, "fine, we'll give you immunity for everything but perjury," and then he had to testify.

 

[Robdude]

I think Goodell is playing this correctly. He has stated more then once that the rumors about the Rams game have had no substance to them. He has asked Walsh to step up with some facts and had made it clear that he will defend Walsh (financially) if he brings forth some facts.

So basically the what Goodell is saying to Walsh (and everyone else) is, "put up or shut up." He has handled this very diplomatically and has expressed the desire to hear anything new. While doing this he has stated over and over that nothing new of substance has been brought to his attention since he punished the team. By saying he will grant legal indemnification he has not changed his stance on anything.

 

[Tunescribe]

Point here is that it's all speculation. He was "fired", so he must be "disgruntled". There are so many ways this could play out, who knows the truth?

Yeah, Walsh still has fond, warm memories of being fired by the Patriots. OK, bub. If you want to go the route of speculation in concocting theoretical truths, it would help to first have a brain. Now, go back and help your team design a "2007 AFC Divisional Playoffs Finalist" banner for the new stadium.

 

[Watson's IQ]

They come out ahead by ending this as a news story. The goal isn't to change public opinion...that ship has sailed. Can Easterbrook hate the Pats any more? Can Steve Young be more frustrated with the Pats organization? Can Tom Jackson have a larger stick up his arse when discussing the Pats? You see where I am going...

My point was that the Pats need to get to the penalty phase as quickly as possible. Unless Walsh has video of Belichick asking for an illicit activity (beyond what they've already admitted to and been punished for) or receiving the bounty of an illicit activity, Walsh has nada.

Goodell needs Kraft in the weeks ahead. It is foolish to believe Kraft didn't sign off on the original punishment (which is the real reason why the tapes were destroyed). Kraft wouldn't stand for any punishment, even a mild public scolding, based on anything Walsh has or says unless it is air tight.

There has never been any strong indication throughout this process that anything Walsh has to say is going to be worth anything. There is certainly evidence to the contrary. But the media has treated the story like "we NEED to hear what this guy has to say" as if it were a matter of national security. I'm just not convinced even if the Walsh thing amounts to nothing that this will go away as a news story.

The media is in love with spygate because it makes GREAT copy. They have a loooong offseason to fill until the draft.

 

[Metaphors]

Godell is saying that if he talks and is sued. The NFL will pick up the tap for Walsh's legal bills and if the Patriots are successful in their suit will pay the award, pay him what his 401k is worth etc.

Goodell has likely worked it out so that the Pats won't sue for any testimony Walsh provides TO THE NFL FRONT OFFICE, even if that testimony shows he violated a signed agreement with the Pats. I would doubt this would apply for testimony before congress or trying to cash in on a book deal.

 

[Jimke]

Goodell is trying to protect his own ass and the NFL in general.

I don't know how much legality confidentiality clauses have in contracts.

Goodell is not a judge in a federal court. If he instructs Walsh to breach

the clause, I wonder if Goodall and the NFL could be held liable?

 

[Watson's IQ]

I can concoct just like everyone else. You say he was fired, so he's ticked, and just trying to get back at the team. What makes that so right, and every other possible scenario wrong?

Your statement contains three concepts:

1. He was fired.
2. He's ticked.
3. He wants to get back at the team. (You can disagree with his intent as much as you want, but he never needed to come forward at all)

We know for a fact that #1 and #3 are true, which makes it seem pretty damned likely that #2 is true as well. You're the one who is making the outlandish claims, so the onus is on you to defend them, not on those of us who are assuming the most logical conclusion until we have better or different information.

 

[Tunescribe]

I can concoct just like everyone else. You say he was fired, so he's ticked, and just trying to get back at the team. What makes that so right, and every other possible scenario wrong?

There's this word called "plausibility" often used in the legal arena. Look it up.

 

[BrianPat]

Yeah, Walsh still has fond, warm memories of being fired by the Patriots. OK, bub. If you want to go the route of speculation in concocting theoretical truths, it would help to first have a brain. Now, go back and help your team design a "2007 AFC Divisional Playoffs Finalist" banner for the new stadium.

My understanding, the Patriots front office said he was fired after repeated warnings for something. They wouldn't comment yet as what those warnings were for but gave the impression it was something that brings his character into question. I could have sworn I saw that in a statement from the Pats, could be wrong.

As usual, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

My guess, Goodell and Spector will meet, it'll end with Spector saying everythings cool, then next year NFL pulls NFL Sunday Ticket from Direct TV and hands it to Comcast. Just kidding, but that's what this is all about. He retiring from the Senate, who really doesn't think he'll be working for Comcast after this. The only thing this action does is get him more money in his new job with Comcast. Which is fine with me, they'll be out of business in 3-5 years with the new wireless broadband that Goggle will be providing when they win the bid for those abandoned analog TV frequencies. Think of it, wireless broadband everywhere, with 80% being an open network, meaning NO locked device allowed ;-)

 

[Jimke]

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/

whatever it means

It means the NFL can dig up dirt on the Pats during all the years

Walsh was employed by the Pats whether it is relevant to Spygate

or not. I hope Bob Kaft is monitoring this situation very closely.

 

[Metaphors]

I'm just not convinced even if the Walsh thing amounts to nothing that this will go away as a news story.

It will go away as a legitimate news story. Ironically, the pursuit of an undefeated season kept the original story alive longer than it deserved, but it really became more of a throwaway punchline before some other real story.

The normal wingnuts will try to cash in as you suggest, but they overestimate the attention span of the American public.

 

[TheSparks1]

Walsh didn't have to film the Rams walk-through in order to have damaging information. What worries me is that anything illegal that was done by the Patriots during his tenure, whether taped by Walsh or not, as a video assistant, he had access to anything illegally taped. He could have swiped one of those tapes, even if it is he was breaking the law.

If the Patriots try to sue Walsh, they'll essentially be suing the NFL, since they'll be paying for his defense. If Walsh is found guilty, it's not even a felony. It's a $20 tape.

 

[Jimke]

Goodell has likely worked it out so that the Pats won't sue for any testimony Walsh provides TO THE NFL FRONT OFFICE, even if that testimony shows he violated a signed agreement with the Pats. I would doubt this would apply for testimony before congress or trying to cash in on a book deal.

What would be the incentive for the Pats to do this? After the initial

incident, Goodell hit them with the stiffest penalties ever levied on an

NFL team.

 

[BrianPat]

Walsh signed non disclosure agreements, this will be interesting that all I can say. As far as running Belichick out of town, I'd suggest just stocking to the Sox

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Walsh didn't have to film the Rams walk-through in order to have damaging information. What worries me is that anything illegal that was done by the Patriots during his tenure, whether taped by Walsh or not, as a video assistant, he had access to anything illegally taped. He could have swiped one of those tapes, even if it is he was breaking the law.

If the Patriots try to sue Walsh, they'll essentially be suing the NFL, since they'll be paying for his defense. If Walsh is found guilty, it's not even a felony. It's a $20 tape.

most of that will fall on pete carroll and bill parcells and then the theory of "all the coaches do this" applies.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Goodell has likely worked it out so that the Pats won't sue for any testimony Walsh provides TO THE NFL FRONT OFFICE, even if that testimony shows he violated a signed agreement with the Pats. I would doubt this would apply for testimony before congress or trying to cash in on a book deal.

Probably doesn't include a book deal. You can't sue someone for testifying in front of congress even if its barred in the contract.

 

[IcyPatriot]

The government has to prove that "Trade Secrets" were actually stolen if such a tape does exist. Belichick and Kraft are no fools ... I am sure they have kept the evidence they have on other teams for future use. The reason Goodell buried the matter is because Belichick and Kraft were prepared to blow this wide open.

I think that the government wants to blow it wide open because stealing "Teade Secrets" is a "Federal Crime" and they can use the NFL's permissiveness in the past of allowing the thefts against them. The government can then attack the league as it pleases behind the scenes.

Goodell will be on the Patriots side on this one ... perhaps Kraft can hold the evidence they still have against the other teams to get that 1st round pick restored.