NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[Patsfanin Philly]

I follow you but if you want to get really finite the question is....was Tom Brady provided notice? Yes or no?

If the answer was no, Berman ruling upheld.

If the answer was yes, for what?

The "what" was a ball violation.

The award for a ball violation is $8k.

By that logic - as was Berman's, Brady was provided notice but the notice was not aligned with the award. Ruling upheld.

Seems pretty binary to me.

Unless they consider it to be in the "conduct detrimental" category with no notice required............

 

[PatsFanSince74]

A thought that occurred to me.

In general, judges like to rule on as narrow a basis as possible. Perhaps the judges want to completely avoid the "Article 46 makes Roger an evil god who can do whatever he wants, regardless of anything" because saying he can be an evil god is offensive to their sense of justice but explicitly saying that federal law X overturns Article 46 is also something they're not comfortable with.

So perhaps they're trying to develop a "Goodell had a decent enough reason to do what he did" foundation to enable them to say something like "We do not have to address issues A, B, and C because an impartial abitrator could reasonably believe Brady was involved because of P, Q, R. Thus we do not need to determine whether Goodell has the power to do anything he wants because he acted reasonably in this case. Berman decision vacated."

Not good for Brady, obviously.

I had to read that three times to get your point.
I need to read the whole transcript.
Does anyone know if it has been posted without editorial comment anywhere?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

OK but we don't really know that. Humans being the complicated creatures they are often motivated by several different things. Maybe Goodell is just a glorified fan of another team, maybe it's league politics, maybe he has a personal problem with one or more members of the Patriots organization, maybe it's a combination of all these things.

The point is (1.) for whatever reason, he's bias and that bias is evident from the inconsistent treatment this team receives compared with other teams; and (2.) the reason for the bias really doesn't matter, if he bias he has no business deciding the facts of the case.

When someone is making 30 or 40 million dollars a year and is answerable to a handful of people, the odds are that he is not thinking for himself, but doing their bidding...but, you are right that, ultimately, "we really don't know" what is or is not in Goodell's mind.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Unless they consider it to be in the "conduct detrimental" category with no notice required............

Agreed.

...and if you are buying how some lawyers were seeing the winds blow yesterday that was exactly where they were going with their questioning.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Unless they consider it to be in the "conduct detrimental" category with no notice required............

If that's the case, this will serve as the ultimate example of the dire consequences of poor legal drafting.

So here we are . . . science exonerates him but we have a bunch of lawyers working to make sure he gets punished anyway. Tells you something about the legal profession.

 

[the Patriot]

There's no way deflategate is ending in three months. The dumbest sports controversy in history cannot be stopped. My guess is it gets sent back to arbitration with instruction to let Brady cross-examine Jeff Pash.

 

[letekro]

If that's the case, this will serve as the ultimate example of the dire consequences of poor legal drafting.

So here we are . . . science exonerates him but we have a bunch of lawyers working to make sure he gets punished anyway. Tells you something about the legal profession.

Actually, it tells you something about the the players, none of whom are lawyers. If you recall, their major concerns in the CBA were the season length and the revenue split. To get to an acceptable place on these issues, they had to make some concessions, including ceding virtually unlimited control to Herr Roger. This farce is the result of that decision, which was made by the players, and not the lawyers.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Actually, it tells you something about the the players, none of whom are lawyers. If you recall, their major concerns in the CBA were the season length and the revenue split. To get to an acceptable place on these issues, they had to make some concessions, including ceding virtually unlimited control to Herr Roger. This farce is the result of that decision, which was made by the players, and not the lawyers.

Presumably, the CBA was drafted by lawyers, not the players.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[SVN]

I wonder if this will happen. I dont know of this news being big in the social media ?

 

[DaBruinz]

Goodell doesn't have an an actual beef with the Pats. The other owners do. Lost revenue due to the Pats. It's always about money. Always in every aspect of life. The way these supposed respected high level judges comported themselves is disturbing. From what I've hear it's something I'd expect a first time judge to be doing. Even then I would expect something more.

It's almost like someone with some.....money....got into their ears. No other explantion for an appellate judge(s) to appear so clueless.

Lost revenue? Umm.. doesn't this year's SB prove that NOT having the Patriots in the SB costs the league money? This years SB only had 111.8M US viewers in comparison to 114.4M for the Pats SB.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually, it tells you something about the the players, none of whom are lawyers. If you recall, their major concerns in the CBA were the season length and the revenue split. To get to an acceptable place on these issues, they had to make some concessions, including ceding virtually unlimited control to Herr Roger. This farce is the result of that decision, which was made by the players, and not the lawyers.

Article 46 has been part of the CBA since it's inception. It's only been since Goodell became Commissioner that it's been an issue. People need to stop acting like Article 46 was brand new and that the players allowed it to be added in the last negotiations..

 

[letekro]

Presumably, the CBA was drafted by lawyers, not the players.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the players didn't know they were giving this power to Goodell as part of the deal? Go back and read contemporaneous news reports. The players understood this very well and did the deal anyway for the extra 1 or 2 percent of revenue share.

 

[letekro]

Article 46 has been part of the CBA since it's inception. It's only been since Goodell became Commissioner that it's been an issue. People need to stop acting like Article 46 was brand new and that the players allowed it to be added in the last negotiations..

This is a specious argument. The players union was well aware of Goodell's interpretation and implementation of Article 46 going into the 2011 CBA. It was an unchecked power that they wanted curbed. The fact is, they conceded the point in favor of other benefits. I'm not saying they were wrong to do so (only so many will be subject to discipline, while all will be affected by revenue sharing and an 18-game schedule), but to blame the lawyers is preposterous.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Actually, it tells you something about the the players, none of whom are lawyers. If you recall, their major concerns in the CBA were the season length and the revenue split. To get to an acceptable place on these issues, they had to make some concessions, including ceding virtually unlimited control to Herr Roger. This farce is the result of that decision, which was made by the players, and not the lawyers.

right. And it was Kessler who wanted them to strike rather than do that. Question: how many posters to this Board do you think would have been screaming about the "selfish, greedy players," if the NFLPA had gone out on strike and they had to miss even one precious Sunday of their football? I'd bet the farm that many who are complaining the loudest about yesterday's hearing would have been among them.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Here is the big problem for Brady, I think, and this has worried me since before it went to Berman. Player contracts (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/SportsEntLaw_Institute/Agent Contracts Between Players & Their Agents/APPENDIX_A__player_contract_.pdf) contain the following language (emphasis is mine):

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional
football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly
conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore
acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other
players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field
performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract

That's in the contracts so there is no way Brady can claim he's not on notice of this. If the NFL can convince the judges that ball deflation is "conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League", then the notice thing goes "poof".

 

[Froob]

Here is the big problem for Brady, I think, and this has worried me since before it went to Berman. Player contracts (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/SportsEntLaw_Institute/Agent Contracts Between Players & Their Agents/APPENDIX_A__player_contract_.pdf) contain the following language (emphasis is mine):



That's in the contracts so there is no way Brady can claim he's not on notice of this. If the NFL can convince the judges that ball deflation is "conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League", then the notice thing goes "poof".

Interesting. Isn't the precedent though that he can't just do whatever he wants? Such as the Ray Rice case?

 

[JMC00]

Here is the big problem for Brady, I think, and this has worried me since before it went to Berman. Player contracts (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/SportsEntLaw_Institute/Agent Contracts Between Players & Their Agents/APPENDIX_A__player_contract_.pdf) contain the following language (emphasis is mine):



That's in the contracts so there is no way Brady can claim he's not on notice of this. If the NFL can convince the judges that ball deflation is "conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League", then the notice thing goes "poof".

Except there is a problem for the league based on

but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice

Brady's counsel was denied access to interview Pash and was denied access to documents at said hearing.... Which is the 2 other reasons Berman gave of why he vacated the award.

 

[SVN]

 

[SVN]

SI legal analyst Michael McCann breaks down NFL vs. Brady hearing