Big Bucks
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,079
- Reaction score
- 749
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.I respectfully disagree. While the above certainly applies to some people, there are certainly a lot who are open minded and willing to change. Heck, the past 6 months have proven that.Interesting. Thanks. I still don't see him filing such a suit.
Why? He has more to lose by losing than he stands to gain by winning. The haters are still going to hate, the ill-informed are still going to be ill-informed and the just plain dumb are going to continue being just plain dumb, even if he wins. On the other hand, if he loses, he will look bad to the few who have given him the benefit of the doubt and the haters, ill-informed and dumb will feel vindicated.
No, he does not have to prove monetary losses. The act of being subjected to ridicule due to defamation would be actionable, and it cannot be doubted that these lies have subjected him to ridicule.Even if he did that, he would have to prove that he lost money directly because of Defamegate. That's almost impossible to do and even if he spent all his time and money and won, it wouldn't be worth what he'd get in return.
As I suggested to the OP, bookmark it and throw it in my face if he does.I respectfully disagree. While the above certainly applies to some people, there are certainly a lot who are open minded and willing to change. Heck, the past 6 months have proven that.
Hope this is not another harbinger of 7 months of deflategate ******** until the season opens in Sept.
It won't dominate the offseason this year like last because there's really nothing new going on. Last year we had the anticipation of the Wells Report until May, then discussion of same for the next few months.Hope this is not another harbinger of 7 months of deflategate ******** until the season opens in Sept.
I still don't understand this simple problem. The NFL, not the NFLPA, brought suit to validate the ruling. How can they now say that the court in which THEY filed does not have jurisdiction in the matter and so the ruling should be vacated?
They are not saying the court does not have jurisdiction.
They are saying that court does have jurisdiction and that the law requires the court to rule in their favor in this case.
I don't think so (but you may be right). What I read early on is that they were saying that the [lower] court does not have jurisdiction to overturn [parts of] a CBA.
They are not saying the court does not have jurisdiction.
They are saying that court does have jurisdiction and that the law requires the court to rule in their favor in this case.
I wonder what's next.My money is on NFL says Brady himself took the footballs into the bathroom with a needle.
This must end with a defamation suit. No way they can keep happily falsely painting a worse and worse picture of the story to get the ruling they want without being held accountable.
No, he does not have to prove monetary losses. The act of being subjected to ridicule due to defamation would be actionable, and it cannot be doubted that these lies have subjected him to ridicule.
Has the NFL ever actually said that outside of legal filings? I don't recall them doing so.
And stuff contained in legal filings cannot give rise to a defamation action. It can be as defamatory as all get-out, but that doesn't matter since legal filings are privileged against any defamation actions.
(The privilege can be lost if the filer publishes the filings with the media. But if the media gets the filings from the court themselves, the privilege stays intact.)
Doty didn't hear this case.
My comment was that the article is bad because it states the obvious and is passed off as "insight."
However, if you insist that I point out things that were "wrong," McCann misstates that the team is still led by Kessler and fails to note that the primary respondent is no longer Kessler, but Winston & Strawn's Appellate Partner, Steffen Johnson. Kessler and Greenspan's names appear on the right side of the cover page of the Appeal Brief (I assume you have read it), or in the "second seat." His article might have been insightful had he done some actual homework and compared Johnson with Clement. But he did not.
He also fails to note that the NFLPA has added Andrew Tulumello, an Appellate Partner from Gibson Dunn. It would have been interesting and useful if he had done some background research and contrasted and compared Tulumello and Johnson with the NFL's high profile team. That would have provided the reader with insight, instead of a partially accurate regurgitation of the obvious.
That is all bad or lazy reporting and I fully stand by my original post.