- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 33,093
- Reaction score
- 22,708
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.IANAL, and certainly "NALitigator," but I think you're right if there is a legal principle that governs the underlying assumptions of a CBA of any type, related to fundamental equity. If that principle exists, then clearly the NFL has violated it, as the process has been used by the NFL as nothing short of a witch-hunt.Smurf raises a point that has interested me. If the infamous article allows Goodell to do what he wants, how he wants, then is there ANY limitation on his powers? Obviously there must be. How is this to be addressed? I don't see a court ruling for the NFL without addressing the boundaries.
My friend is a lawyer and he would be surprised if Brady won the case.
Agreed. But, in a sense, we're all just guessing at this point...and hoping...So? There are numerous other lawyers and legal experts that said the judge would rule in favor of Brady. Unless your friend is Richard Berman his opinion is just a guess.
Agreed. But, in a sense, we're all just guessing at this point...and hoping...
As an aside, for all these people who are authoring these arguments that Goodell is well within his rights to use arbitrary process and punishments as long as Goodell-as-arbitrator reviews the process and punishments and rubber stamps them and there's no proof that he maliciously misinterpreted the CBA and evidentiary record as arbitrator, I wish they would explain exactly where they think that power is limited.
IANAL, and certainly "NALitigator," but I think you're right if there is a legal principle that governs the underlying assumptions of a CBA of any type, related to fundamental equity. If that principle exists, then clearly the NFL has violated it, as the process has been used by the NFL as nothing short of a witch-hunt.
If the case comes down to internal technicalities around Article 46 and the definition of "Notice," then there might be a problem. I am encouraged that Berman seems to have seized on the Pash matter as a possible reason to vacate, but the ruling would be far more damaging to the NFL if he can base it on Notice.
I dont know anything about all this stuff but I think the Notice argument from the PA will land in the area of disputed facts with NFL saying they did and integrity of game blah bhal and PA saying they didnt.Notice is interesting and since a finding of failure of notice voids the suspension, critical as well.
The league says there is notice that conduct detrimental can result in a suspension, and that the CBA says it is solely up to the Commissioner to determine conduct detrimental. Legally as odd as that is (the commissioner could conclude that swearing on TV is conduct detrimental to the NFL and suspend all of the players on Hard knocks for life, for example) it seems to favor the league.
However the fact that the CBA says Goodell will issue the punishment is a notice issue, and the fact that the discipline letter specifically stated that the punishment is based on the Wells report, and the Wells report specifically cites it is about a different policy, seems to favor Brady on notice.
Perhaps most importantly with respect to notice are the Peterson ruling, and precedent, meaning that regardless of what is in the CBA, the court ruling, and previous cases are the defining message to Brady of notice for what he could face as punishment.
Why does Berman even have to consider the CBA unless a rules violation has been
shown to exist? His questioning of the NFL early on seemed to be saying
" how did you directly link the football deflation to Tom Brady?"
If Berman feels the NFL did not establish a rules violation occurred by Tom Brady
why does he have to rule on CBA procedure violations?
I dont know anything about all this stuff but I think the Notice argument from the PA will land in the area of disputed facts with NFL saying they did and integrity of game blah bhal and PA saying they didnt.
The biggest wild card is the Jeff Pash exclusion. Depends on how strongly the judge feels about could tilt the decision.
I don't have a clue either, but I don't think everyone who is citing Article 46 is doing so "lazily." I think many are seriously trying to understand its full scope and limitations. Others, like Munson, are being, to put it kindly, "lazy" in their references to it.I don't think I've made a definitive guess on this thing at all. I just have no clue how it will go. But the amount of lawyers and legal experts that say this thing is leaning in Brady's favor definitely outnumber the ones that say the nfl will get the judgement. Which most of them just lazily cite Article 46 and act like a Federal Judge is powerless to stop it.
I think that there is a very real possibility that the NFL wins this case. Sure, the evidence and arguments appear to all fall into Brady's favor, but that doesn't mean he will win.
O.J was found innocent.
To state that the NFL will win this case is not in the realm of crazy and if people take that position, you have to kind of respect it, even though it doesn't make sense based on what we recognize as the facts of the case. It is a CBA and they do have their own rules, the union agreed to them.
My friend is a lawyer and he would be surprised if Brady won the case.
I think Nash argued about the notice for equipment violation last week saying "it says a minimum of a fine and can be more" .Something like that. Kessler honed in on the point that "first offense is fine". Too many conflicting theories which Nash attributes to discovery dispute. Sure its BS but if there is any dispute then its possible judge favors the nfl. Excluding Pash testimony and its significance for berman is going to decide the case IMO.