NFL reportedly offers to cut Jonathan Vilma's suspension to 8 games

[captain insano]

Re: Did BountyGate just get more interesting? Report of a deal being offered

I neither said, nor implied, that Goodell admitted anything. Two threads were merged, and the title I'd used was changed to something that I had nothing to do with.

The title I used:

ya relax chief. go take a valium or something

 

[pherein]

Re: Did BountyGate just get more interesting? Report of a deal being offered

The league is likely wisely concerned that a NO judge who seems to be looking past the law

As if in that judges presence you would not look like a child talking about law. Fiction. Your just discrediting by placing a tag "N.O." as being obviously tainted. Simplistic and pretty mean.
This is about what is right and wrong the CB agreement means nothing.
As Brees got agitated in the faulk interview and said this is about right and wrong, and has nothing to do with restrictions of the CBA.
Goodell and the NFL can not be allowed to punish any player or team if without evidence of their guilt. No one cares about the CBA stupid agreement, and only the silly care about it. This is about honor and truth.

Did they do it, are they guilty is all anyone cares about. That and end this stupid circus.
If Goodell overstepped his authority and was biased, as the judge sees it so far, then who are you to question that?
or are you just stuck in an endless media fed loop, like most fans. Truth is all that matters to us pal, we dont care about the rest of this junk.

That and this team is pretty pissed, and thats not a good thing. There is no common sense to run out the clock on this team anymore with SP, They just want to dominate, should be interesting. There might me some , no mercy 50 pts this year. We saw the anger in the HOF game. Should be a fun practice in NE.

 

[patfanken]

Re: Did BountyGate just get more interesting? Report of a deal being offered

Did they do it, are they guilty is all anyone cares about. That and end this stupid circus.
If Goodell overstepped his authority and was biased, as the judge sees it so far, then who are you to question that?.

Pherein, my brother. They ARE guilty. You got to deal with it. The NFL did NOT make this case up to persecute the franchise that best optimized what good an NFL franchise can be to a city. Post Katrina, and their superbowl win, the Saints were among the best PR the NFL had. They had NO reason to bring this all up for NO REASON.

You make the league's point right in your own statement. Goodell, love him or hate him, DID NOT overstep his authority. The NFL didn't give him this authority, the CBA does. Taking it to a home court ELECTED judge, is overstepping. That guy will have no job if he rules against the Saints. In fact if he does he'll be in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage"

Listen, I don't believe that the Pats gained an unfair advantage by filming those signs on the sideline. BUT they did break the rules as handed down by the commissioner. AND they did it after being warned several times. Same for the Saints. They had several opportunities to change their ways before the league had to initiate such a draconian punishment.

BOTTOM LINE - the REAL crime that BOTH the Pats and Saints committed wasn't Spygate or Bountygate. The REAL crime was institutional arrogance. Both franchises, at the time, thought that they were bigger than the league, and both paid a huge price for it. Its time the Saints players, owners, coaches AND fans deal with at least THAT part of this. Own it.......and move on.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Re: Did BountyGate just get more interesting? Report of a deal being offered

You can't make this comment in good conscience knowing a settlement offer report has been rejected by NFL.com writers. Whether or not there is a settlement offer, who knows but your comment is an ill advised one.

I used key words like "seems" and "may have" which both strongly imply that I obviously don't know the truth, as I am not on the inside. I also began my next statement with "If that's the case," again illustrating that I am not making any definitive statements.

Furthermore, I'm not involved in the case in any way, shape or form, which means that my statements cannot be ill advised. My statements have no impact on what has happened, is happening or will happen. "Ill advised" would be if I were a lawyer to any of the parties or offering any legal advice. I'm on a message board where 99 percent of the stuff posted is opinion-based. I can do that, kind sir.