NFL announces deal with Walsh; Goodell meeting set for May 13

[PatriotsReign]

To be fair, though, a lot of us thought nothing would come of the original JEST incident, either.

Seriously, though, I keep coming back to a few simple points:

(1) If the tape exists, why haven't we seen it yet?
(2) Everything Goodell has learned so far points to the non-existence of the tape.
(3) While the Patriots have not necessarily been forthcoming about what has happened, at no point has anyone currently associated with the team clearly said something that was patently and demonstrably false. Given that Goodell apparently told Belichick that the penalty for lying to him would be a year's suspension plus further sanctions, why on earth would he lie to Goodell about this?

I must say every one of the last 3 points you make are good ones. But your first point is rather...well, pointless. Whatever we thought would happen regarding the Jets incident, we all knew we were caught red-handed. There was indisputeable proof.

With Matt Walsh, there is nothing. So the 2 can not be compared.

 

[PatriotsReign]

To be fair, though, a lot of us thought nothing would come of the original JEST incident, either.

Seriously, though, I keep coming back to a few simple points:

(1) If the tape exists, why haven't we seen it yet?
(2) Everything Goodell has learned so far points to the non-existence of the tape.
(3) While the Patriots have not necessarily been forthcoming about what has happened, at no point has anyone currently associated with the team clearly said something that was patently and demonstrably false. Given that Goodell apparently told Belichick that the penalty for lying to him would be a year's suspension plus further sanctions, why on earth would he lie to Goodell about this?
(4) Belichick and Pioli know--more than we do--precisely what shenanigans led to Walsh's firing. If they are acting the way they are simply because they think he can't back up any allegations he might have, rather than because they know he can't possibly have the things some people claim he has (because they don't exist), then they have to be so #%@#ing stupid that they deserve any punishment that might come their way. For some reason, though, Belichick just doesn't strike me as that kind of stupid.

Buddy, I read the reply you made to my post before you deleted it and it sounded like you did a 360!!! You made no sense at all and contradicted many of your previous points.

Then you deleted it...why?

 

[BSR]

Thanks for both answering my initial question and sticking up for me a bit in your prior post (the questions I pose on this topic as a non-Pats fan are far from popular here I've noticed, and can understand). I came here to discuss this matter because I find it interesting and who better to disuss this with than Pats fans. Call it trolling if they want, but I hope they notice that I don't say with certainty what will happen here--I don't know, nor do they, what the truth is on all this or how it will play out. I have my views on what the likelihood of certain things is based on the information at hand, but am not saying (like some here are in the other direction I've noticed) that "the Pats are definitely guilty, guilty, guilty here". It's just as likely that Walsh is a whack job with an axe to grind whose mouth overloaded his rear in an effort to see his name in lights and hurt the team that hurt him. That's all a very real possibility, but so is his having been the "dirty jobs" man for them coming home to roost. That's why I think that the lie detector point may turn out to be a potential way to resolve (or try to resolve) the nearly inevitable "he said, he said." We'll have to see.

On the Kraft point above--my apologies if I offended, but it was an honest question, as I had not seen that, nor did I see the usual televised concession speech, because I don't think Fox aired one for whatever reason. Of course, that doesn't mean Mr. Kraft didn't offer his congratulations, as your link pointed out (but also as I myself noted in my initial question).

Don't mean to rain on folks' parades here even more, but according to an interview with Goodell on ESPN radio here in NY tonight that I myself heard on the way out to dinner Walsh's lawyers have told him they have new information that he'll be interested in. What that is he didn't go into (for whatever reason, including he didn't know details about it most likely). I suspect this may get picked up in tomorrow's papers, but we'll see.

Oh stop...you've continually shown that you aren't here to "discuss" anything. A discussion involves a back and forth not just you stating your opinion and then running away when someone questions your logic. If you want to prove you are not a troll then just go back and answer the dozens of questions posed to you, no matter how much they destroy your points.

And as for you Goodell interview where he said the lawyers have new information please provide a link where he was quoted. Otherwise its just something made up by a proven troll.

 

[okterrific]

I don't know why there are over 300 posts debating something that has not changed since Matt Walsh's name came up so conveniently during SB weekend.

I have already stated more than once that nothing will come of this. There is no mystery tape, no secret that hasn't been told nor any revelation that will be uncovered. So how can anyone think otherwise? UNBELIEVEABLE!!! It's amazing how "Gossippy" some football fans can be!

Just like when the incredibly STUPID story about Randy Moss & the lady's pinky came out, fans here flocked to post their wild, unsubstantiated theories. I told everyone here several times that Randy did nothing wrong & nothing will come of it. So all-together now, tell me what happened?

NOTHING! That's what happened.

Yes, your pure speculation was correct and others' was wrong. Hopefully it's the same this time around.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Yes, your pure speculation was correct and others' was wrong. Hopefully it's the same this time around.

Mine is not speculation at all. it is 100% FACTUAL.

 

[okterrific]

And by the way, we still don't know what happened between Moss and that woman.

 

[PatsWSB47]

And by the way, we still don't know what happened between Moss and that woman.

Grade F lawyering. Congratulations Dipsh1t.

 

[okterrific]

Either that or Grade A hush money. Who knows.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Either that or Grade A hush money. Who knows.

Unless you've got anything other than stupid open ended questions then STFU. Here's a good one right on your level. Ever notice that Dog is God spelled backwards? Makes ya think huh?

Wait, sorry for that if that sounded like an insult. A wise man once said "there are no stupid questions....only stupid people that ask questions."

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I say "might not need" b/c, of course, IANAL. That said, I used the wrong term. What I'm arguing is that what the Herald Hack wrote constitutes defamation per se, a form of defamation for which no actual damages need to be demonstrated.

First of all, i despise Tomass and had stopped reading the Herald years ago because of its low journalistic standards or I would have done so in February. I am no apologist for the haters nor, after nearly a quarter century supporting the Pats through thick and thin, am I a "troll" by anyone's definition.

"IANAL" either, so I got busy on Google trying to understand "defamation per se" (hey, I admit to using Google, unlike folks who try to pretend that they are experts based on a three millisecond search--in other words, if there is a real, libel lawyer reading this post, I am more than open to his/her correcting me.)

The good news is that Massachusetts is a "Defamation per se" State, so one can proceed with such a suit.

The bad news is that a "Defamation per se" proceeding, under common law, generally requires that the alleged slander meet one of the following criteria:

--It alleges criminal conduct. No one has reasonably suggested that what the Pats have done is criminal.

--It alleges that someone has a "loathsome" disease. Nope.

--It alleges "unchastity" in a woman (this is an anachronism but, hey, I didn't make it up--common law has been around for centuries)

--It alleges something that is "injurious" to another's business or trade. Here we come back to defining "injurious" when one is dealing with an entitity that is in the public spotlight. What injuries, other than people saying foul and unfair things about them, has the Patriots organization suffered as a result of Spygate? We're big boys, we're supposed to be able to take this kind of thing and move on. Appeals courts at the Federal level have watered this down pretty significantly. The bottom line is that the Pats might prevail after a long and ugly proceeding, only to be awarded $1.00 by a jury.

 

[PatriotsReign]

And by the way, we still don't know what happened between Moss and that woman.

We all now know it was "nothing". And I knew that from the moment I read the story.

My point is WAY too many members of this board just LOVE to gossip. I find that deeply disturbing. Some are as bad as the media in that they seem to want to guess what the truth is. We had close to 1,000 posts on the Moss non-incident without knowing what happened.

The same thing happened regarding Brady's "boot" picture taken in NY. My question is, "are we men or women?" Of course this is not directed at our female members, who by the way, seem to refrain from gossip.

Go figure!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Either that or Grade A hush money. Who knows.

Unless you've got anything other than stupid open ended questions then STFU. Here's a good one right on your level. Ever notice that Dog is God spelled backwards? Makes ya think huh?

Wait, sorry for that if that sounded like an insult. A wise man once said "there are no stupid questions....only stupid people that ask questions."

Someone should have given okterrific the age-old advice;

"It is better to remain silent & be thought a fool than to open one's mouth & remove all doubt!"

 

[okterrific]

We all now know it was "nothing".

Interesting choice of quoatation marks.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The bad news is that a "Defamation per se" proceeding, under common law, generally requires that the alleged slander meet one of the following criteria:

--It alleges something that is "injurious" to another's business or trade. Here we come back to defining "injurious" when one is dealing with an entitity that is in the public spotlight. What injuries, other than people saying foul and unfair things about them, has the Patriots organization suffered as a result of Spygate? We're big boys, we're supposed to be able to take this kind of thing and move on. Appeals courts at the Federal level have watered this down pretty significantly. The bottom line is that the Pats might prevail after a long and ugly proceeding, only to be awarded $1.00 by a jury.

Well, I dunno, but I think the fact that Goodell has said that if the story were true, it would likely subject the Pats to additional punishment could be seen as grounds that the allegations are themselves injurious.

 

[FootballFanetic]

Oh stop...you've continually shown that you aren't here to "discuss" anything. A discussion involves a back and forth not just you stating your opinion and then running away when someone questions your logic. If you want to prove you are not a troll then just go back and answer the dozens of questions posed to you, no matter how much they destroy your points.

And as for you Goodell interview where he said the lawyers have new information please provide a link where he was quoted. Otherwise its just something made up by a proven troll.

Pretty tough to link to a radio report, no? (Please re-read my original post.) It was an interview with Goodell on 1050 ESPN radio in NY at about 6:50 last night from the draft. Believe me or not, makes no difference to me. He also said that everything he's done in this matter has been done with the best interests of the League in mind and sounded somewhat non-chalant about the whole thing.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Thanks for both answering my initial question and sticking up for me a bit in your prior post (the questions I pose on this topic as a non-Pats fan are far from popular here I've noticed, and can understand). I came here to discuss this matter because I find it interesting and who better to disuss this with than Pats fans. Call it trolling if they want, but I hope they notice that I don't say with certainty what will happen here--I don't know, nor do they, what the truth is on all this or how it will play out. I have my views on what the likelihood of certain things is based on the information at hand, but am not saying (like some here are in the other direction I've noticed) that "the Pats are definitely guilty, guilty, guilty here". It's just as likely that Walsh is a whack job with an axe to grind whose mouth overloaded his rear in an effort to see his name in lights and hurt the team that hurt him. That's all a very real possibility, but so is his having been the "dirty jobs" man for them coming home to roost. That's why I think that the lie detector point may turn out to be a potential way to resolve (or try to resolve) the nearly inevitable "he said, he said." We'll have to see.

On the Kraft point above--my apologies if I offended, but it was an honest question, as I had not seen that, nor did I see the usual televised concession speech, because I don't think Fox aired one for whatever reason. Of course, that doesn't mean Mr. Kraft didn't offer his congratulations, as your link pointed out (but also as I myself noted in my initial question).

Don't mean to rain on folks' parades here even more, but according to an interview with Goodell on ESPN radio here in NY tonight that I myself heard on the way out to dinner Walsh's lawyers have told him they have new information that he'll be interested in. What that is he didn't go into (for whatever reason, including he didn't know details about it most likely). I suspect this may get picked up in tomorrow's papers, but we'll see.

Fanetic, what you need to accept is that NOTHING Walsh "says" will result in any action. There will have to be absolute proof. So Walsh's lawyer saying Matt has info Goodell will interested in actually means nothing if he has no proof.

But of course YOU know this. And of course you know it's the truth. Words will mean absolutely nothing and a lie detector test will not be used. That's a ridiculous proposition.

But once again, you THINK fans like you deserve answers that will satisfy your questions. The fact is, fans like you deserve no answers at all. Goodell isn't worried about satisfying your curiousity. He made that clear when he destroyed the tapes.

Think of this to be like the way the U.S. government handles UFO & conspiracy information. The public doesn't need to know.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, I dunno, but I think the fact that Goodell has said that if the story were true, it would likely subject the Pats to additional punishment could be seen as grounds that the allegations are themselves injurious.

"injurious" for a company or institution in the public eye means either that the allegation interferes with or prohibits it from carrying on its business or that it causes the company or institution to suffer financial harm.

the pats are still playing football, so they are carrying on their business.

as for financial harm, there has been no loss of ticket revenues (in fact 98% of season ticket holders renewed at drastically higher prices), there has been no loss of TV revenue as these revenue are contractual and there has been no demonstrable or material loss of merchandising revenues that might not be attributed to exiting the Playoffs in a disappointing fashion two years in a row. in order to show financial harm vis a vis the value of the franchise, the Krafts would have to put it on sale and then show that the bids were lower than outside estimates of its value, which isn't in the cards.