League in the process of granting legal indemnification to walsh

[Metaphors]

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.

Because Walsh is out there and everyone (but the media) wants him to go away. The best way to do that is to get his testimony/evidence and have Goodell publicly say it proves nothing...except Walsh is a dishonest sack of donkey dung. Walsh's statements never go public and (besides Easterbrook and his crew of ambulence chasers) everyone moves on.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is for this to become a lengthy legal battle in a public forum.

 

[Metaphors]

You can't sue someone for testifying in front of congress even if its barred in the contract.

No, but congress would have to prove that the potential harm caused to the Patriots would be outweighed by the public interest. Right about this time is when Leahy gives Specter his pacifier, puts him down for a nap and makes the whole thing go away.

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm getting a bad taste in my mouth from all of this. The further this drags on the more I want BB run out of town...permanently. Let him go join his buddy back in Cleveland.

Thank God I still have the BankofAmericaSox.

Great post! In trying times like these, I also thank God I have the Wayland Ladies Auxiliary Croquet Team, and can find comfort tuning in to "Desperate Housewives."

 

[marty]

If there was a story there worth protecting the guy for, don't you think the NYPost, Times, (insert your fav rag) would have done so???? There's nothing there except a boy looking to cash in.

 

[Watson's IQ]

If there was a story there worth protecting the guy for, don't you think the NYPost, Times, (insert your fav rag) would have done so???? There's nothing there except a boy looking to cash in.

Agreed. Often, merely the suggestion or implication of scandal is far more damaging than the facts themselves. All that the media really needed to accomplish with Walsh was done the moment they broke the story. People's imaginations filled in the rest, after all America loves a whistle blower.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm getting a bad taste in my mouth from all of this. The further this drags on the more I want BB run out of town...permanently. Let him go join his buddy back in Cleveland.

Thank God I still have the Sox.

Cognitive dissonance, eh?

 

[MassPats38]

If the NFL grants indemnity (immunity is granted by the government against future criminal charges - the NFL could not stop someone else from suing Walsh, I suspect not even teams or individuals in the NFL), I suspect it would offer to cover any monetary damages arising from breach of the confidentiality agreement supposedly keeping Walsh quiet (he seems to talk too much to call him quiet). I would be flat out amazed if the NFL would let Walsh slander the team or members of the team and avoid paying in a civil suit. Playing the role of insurer for his testimony means the NFL would write the policy and would end up in its own law suit with Walsh when he claims to be covered for a slander claim.

The NFL seems to want this guy gone and his calling his bluff. Put him in a situation where he pays if he lies and see if he actually has anything or goes away. If Walsh no longer works for the NFL, he is under no obligation to talk to Gooddell. Any good lawyer could shred Walsh as having an axe to grind and reason to lie, and the Commissioner has repeatedly said it has heard numerous claims against the Pats and dismissed them as not credible.

It makes for good drama, but Walsh will be flushed as the drowned rat he is.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

If the NFL grants indemnity (immunity is granted by the government against future criminal charges - the NFL could not stop someone else from suing Walsh, I suspect not even teams or individuals in the NFL), I suspect it would offer to cover any monetary damages arising from breach of the confidentiality agreement supposedly keeping Walsh quiet (he seems to talk too much to call him quiet). I would be flat out amazed if the NFL would let Walsh slander the team or members of the team and avoid paying in a civil suit. Playing the role of insurer for his testimony means the NFL would write the policy and would end up in its own law suit with Walsh when he claims to be covered for a slander claim.

The NFL seems to want this guy gone and his calling his bluff. Put him in a situation where he pays if he lies and see if he actually has anything or goes away. If Walsh no longer works for the NFL, he is under no obligation to talk to Gooddell. Any good lawyer could shred Walsh as having an axe to grind and reason to lie, and the Commissioner has repeatedly said it has heard numerous claims against the Pats and dismissed them as not credible.

It makes for good drama, but Walsh will be flushed as the drowned rat he is.

my question now is , how did all this bs affect the pats two nights before the superbowl.

 

[upstater1]

Agreed. Last time I checked, the Pats are 1/32 of the NFL. If the NFL gives Walsh legal protection, I would doubt the Pats would then be able to sue him. Let Walsh say whatever he wants and then let Belichick deny it. Let Walsh provide whatever tapes he has and let Belichick say he had nothing to do with them. And the world goes right on a-spinnin'...

The Patriots would sue Walsh, not the NFL. They would sue him for breach of contract.

 

[upstater1]

disgruntled because he didn't like the unfair advantage these tactics were giving the Pats? How did he make his way to Hawaii?? LOL, Kraft gave him a bunch of money to keep his trap shut, but he's too giddy to keep quiet forever.

How did taping the walkthrough give the Patriots an unfair advantage?

Explain that to me.

I bet you can't.

 

[Pats726]

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.

I am not sure either...Goodell can NOT undo contracts from other parties..THAT he will try might mean a lot more in the long run...

 

[upstater1]

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.

The Patriots simply said they had no other tapes. If this guy made a tape himself, how does that implicate the Patriots?

The Patriots said they used to tape over a dozen tapes when the previous info was worthless, which makes sense because no team is going to keep the same exact signals over several years. Keeping tapes from 2001 would be absolutely pointless, especially since the Rams don't even have the same coaches.

 

[MassPats38]

my question now is , how did all this bs affect the pats two nights before the superbowl.

After the long parade of hate this year directed at the Pats, I just don't see that Specter and this clown would do much damage. I would love to say the media distracted the Pats and caused them to lose, but I just don't believe it would happen after the Pats kept winning through a season of this. Specter scares the Patriots about as much as he scares the average American. I suspect the Pats also have enough high-priced attorneys on retainer to bury Walsh in lawsuits until the end of time and would not fear him one bit.

Again, all this Spygate stuff blows but I do not see it amounting to anything. As a commentator on Sirius NFL said the day after the Super Bowl, the one positive for the Pats out of that game is the haters will quiet quickly rather than attacking them as NFL champion until next season. The sooner the better. I hope the Pats take notes of who is talking from the playing field and take frustrations out on the field next year.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

After the long parade of hate this year directed at the Pats, I just don't see that Specter and this clown would do much damage. I would love to say the media distracted the Pats and caused them to lose, but I just don't believe it would happen after the Pats kept winning through a season of this. Specter scares the Patriots about as much as he scares the average American. I suspect the Pats also have enough high-priced attorneys on retainer to bury Walsh in lawsuits until the end of time and would not fear him one bit.

Again, all this Spygate stuff blows but I do not see it amounting to anything. As a commentator on Sirius NFL said the day after the Super Bowl, the one positive for the Pats out of that game is the haters will quiet quickly rather than attacking them as NFL champion until next season. The sooner the better. I hope the Pats take notes of who is talking from the playing field and take frustrations out on the field next year.

haven't you noticed every friday night before the superbowl some controversy comes out and that team loses the superbowl.

 

[Metaphors]

The Patriots would sue Walsh, not the NFL. They would sue him for breach of contract.

My point is that the legal entity known as the NFL is just acting on behalf of the 32 owners, Kraft being one of them. It would make no sense for the NFL to indemnify Walsh and then have an NFL entity effectively sue itself and its other partners.

You can be sure that Kraft and league lawyers are spelling out exactly what is covered as part of the agreement to testify. Only a few high-ranking officials will hear the testimony and if any of the testimony goes public, the deal is off.

It is surprising that I continue to hear how the NFL and the Patriots are in conflict over these issues. They are together in making sure this ends up in the best interest of the league.

 

[Bella*chick]

Hey, can we run Patsstillrule out of here on a rail? He can join his buddies in Indianapolis, Pittsburgh or New York.

 

[upstater1]

LOL. Explain to me how it doesn't.

If they did, and it is proven, what do you think will happen.

If it doesn't help, why do it in the first place?

Go back and read my post.

I said, it didn't.

I didn't say it couldn't have.

I said, it didn't.

In your initial post, you assumed it did give them an advantage, assuming they had done it.

It's pretty clear to me that you're not in possession of the facts.

Such as, what did the Rams practice that day?

What could have possibly been captured on film?

How could that knowledge have assisted the Patriots?

If you knew the answers to these questions, you would realize that the Patriots gained no advantage whether or not they taped it.

 

[upstater1]

My point is that the legal entity known as the NFL is just acting on behalf of the 32 owners, Kraft being one of them. It would make no sense for the NFL to indemnify Walsh and then have an NFL entity effectively sue itself and its other partners.

You can be sure that Kraft and league lawyers are spelling out exactly what is covered as part of the agreement to testify. Only a few high-ranking officials will hear the testimony and if any of the testimony goes public, the deal is off.

It is surprising that I continue to hear how the NFL and the Patriots are in conflict over these issues. They are together in making sure this ends up in the best interest of the league.

When the NFL went to court with Al Davis, these seeming contradictions were not apparent. I don't think it's a problem here either. The league idemnifies Walsh, Pats sue Walsh. Effectively suing the league is very different than suing the league directly.

 

[Metaphors]

If they did, and it is proven, what do you think will happen.

If someone has evidence (audio, video, written admission) that Belichick asked for the taping of the walkthrough AND has evidence that Belichick took possession of the resulting video, then Belichick should be fired and his eventual place in the Hall of Fame taken away. Not for cheating...but for being so incredibly stupid about doing it.

If it doesn't help, why do it in the first place?

Until someone comes up with the evidence described above, the question is irrelevant. If pumping noise into a domed stadium doesn't help, why do it in the first place? If getting bootleg audio of the opposing quarterback's audibles doesn't help, why do it in the first place? If filming endzone video without permission doesn't help, why do it in the first place? If contacting an opposing player while they are still under contract doesn't help, why do it in the first place?

Are any of these questions relevant? Neither is yours.

 

[MassPats38]

haven't you noticed every friday night before the superbowl some controversy comes out and that team loses the superbowl.

There is a fine tradition of that - the Raiders and their o-lineman disappearing into Mexico and I believe Robinson of the Falcons getting caught with a hooker (or a cop posing as a hooker) - ah, the memories. But those seem to be players melting down during Super Bowl media week and making the news, not the press stirring up history to put a team in the news.