Patriots have filed an amicus brief in support of Brady/NFLPA.

[IllegalContact]

Not when Kraft's actions directly impact the football game we watch in terms of a player's suspension being upheld or overturned. That affects the quality of the game we watch or not....

so how did krafts actions directly impact brady's situation?

 

[signbabybrady]

I'd frame it differently.

In the past, everything Kraft has done in Brady's support was too little. It was a reason to bash him LESS than one otherwise might, but it wasn't a reason to entirely not-bash.

This time, however, he's doing something noteworthy, just as he should have long ago. I think it's a good reason to stop bashing, or to not-bash going forward.

I see your point but I actually do think I was wrong I just didn't know it. For a long time I questioned whether Bob was acting on behalf of Brady or his wallet.

Now I think he was definitely working on behalf of Brady but trying to keep it behind the scenes as to not publicly be against the board of owners he sits on. It was a mistake but nothing like had he sided with his owner buddies.

 

[Galeb]

As I said from the start it's a fact you can chose to believe or not I don't really care. If you want to believe that they would ask him to testify by phone instead of in person you can but it's silly.
If you don't want to accept what facts I tell you research further its there to be found.
Finally does it really matter whether his refusal to testify was by phone.m, in person or both?
The point remains Brady wanted him to testify and he did not.

All the other crap is just message board dysfunctional behavior

Hold on a second. I remembered the conversations differently than you did. I considered the possibility that I remembered them incorrectly, so I didn't chime in until I did the research. There were multiple sources with Schefter's tweet, and none said Brady asked Kraft to physically be there. I even read the page in the link you posted, and what people were discussing was Schefter's tweet that the NFLPA asked Kraft to call in.

You can argue that you think that Brady asked Kraft to be there, and that's fine. But claiming it is proven fact, calling out people who disagree and mischaracterizing their own conversations is poor form, and looks really bad. If you really want to be right, you must be able to admit when you are wrong.

 

[IllegalContact]

As I said from the start it's a fact you can chose to believe or not I don't really care. If you want to believe that they would ask him to testify by phone instead of in person you can but it's silly.
If you don't want to accept what facts I tell you research further its there to be found.
Finally does it really matter whether his refusal to testify was by phone.m, in person or both?
The point remains Brady wanted him to testify and he did not.

All the other crap is just message board dysfunctional behavior

I believe there has to be a substantial reason for Kraft to not testify and I don't think that decision affects Krafts relationship with Brady at all.

It likely goes to Kraft toeing a line between supporting Brady without violating a 'trust' if you will of not testifying against other owners or the league itself which he is a charter member of.

I believe there have been plenty of conversations between the 2 and part of those conversations have been discussing how to deal with conflicting interests. They're too close not to.

as much as people would like it to be untrue, throwing a hissy fit would have never worked

 

[Tony2046]

If you're referring to the link I posted, it said nothing about Brady asking Kraft to be at the hearing. It stated that the NFLPA requested that Kraft call in to the appeal. I only read about a page into the link you posted, but it didn't offer anything that wasn't in the link I posted.

Considering the nature of human memory, it is totally understandable that after so many months you remember the NFLPA request for Kraft to call in as Brady asking Kraft to be there. That said, unless I'm missing something, you are wrong. Be a man, admit your mistake and move on. It's only a big deal if you make it one.

I don't think he's wrong. Why couldn't Kraft testify over the phone?

Report: Robert Kraft Wrote Statement In Support Of Tom Brady’s Character (<< Link)

Ian RapoportVerified account‏@RapSheet
Interesting to note: The @NFLPA called Robert Kraft to testify over the phone. He could not. So he offered a written statement of support.


Adam SchefterVerified account‏@AdamSchefter
Patriots owner Robert Kraft, now out of country, wrote an affidavit to be introduced into today's appeal, supporting Tom Brady's character.

 

[Galeb]

I don't think he's wrong. Why couldn't Kraft testify over the phone?

Report: Robert Kraft Wrote Statement In Support Of Tom Brady’s Character (<< Link)

Ian RapoportVerified account‏@RapSheet
Interesting to note: The @NFLPA called Robert Kraft to testify over the phone. He could not. So he offered a written statement of support.


Adam SchefterVerified account‏@AdamSchefter
Patriots owner Robert Kraft, now out of country, wrote an affidavit to be introduced into today's appeal, supporting Tom Brady's character.

Tony, I don't think you understand the argument. Andy is saying that Brady himself asked Kraft to physically be at the appeal and that we all talked about it. All the info that I have seen linked, including yours, says that the NFLPA asked Kraft to phone in. They two are different things. Brady may have asked Kraft to physically be there, but I've seen no evidence of it.

I never said Kraft couldn't have testified over the phone.

 

[Tony2046]

Tony, I don't think you understand the argument. Andy is saying that Brady himself asked Kraft to physically be at the appeal and that we all talked about it. All the info that I have seen linked, including yours, says that the NFLPA asked Kraft to phone in. They two are different things. Brady may have asked Kraft to physically be there, but I've seen no evidence of it.

I never said Kraft couldn't have testified over the phone.

Can I ask what the difference is? Isn't the underlying premise that Kraft waffles between supporting Brady and hugging Roger?

 

[Galeb]

Can I ask what the difference is? Isn't the underlying premise that Kraft waffles between supporting Brady and hugging Roger?

One is a request by someone who is supposedly considered a "son" by the other to physically stand by his side at the appeal. The other is an organization representing Brady asking Kraft to call into the appeal. I find it hard to believe that someone such as you can't make that distinction. This isn't a shot at you, I'm just puzzled by it.

Furthermore, we don't know the tone or nature of the NFLPA's conversation with Kraft. Was it an outright denial or did Kraft say it would be tough cuz he'd be flying and the NFLPA agreed that a letter would suffice? We really don't know, just as we don't know if Brady himself actually asked Kraft to physically be there. As I said before, it is fine for people to think that is what happened, but it's another thing entirely to misrepresent peoples' own conversations and bash them for making a very real, significant distinction.

 

[IllegalContact]

One is a request by someone who is supposedly considered a "son" by the other to physically stand by his side at the appeal. The other is an organization representing Brady asking Kraft to call into the appeal. I find it hard to believe that someone such as you can't make that distinction. This isn't a shot at you, I'm just puzzled by it.

Furthermore, we don't know the tone or nature of the NFLPA's conversation with Kraft. Was it an outright denial or did Kraft say it would be tough cuz he'd be flying and the NFLPA agreed that a letter would suffice? We really don't know, just as we don't know if Brady himself actually asked Kraft to physically be there. As I said before, it is fine for people to think that is what happened, but it's another thing entirely to misrepresent peoples' own conversations and bash them for making a very real, significant distinction.

it depends on perspective and possibly how you want to make something look.......but at the end of the day, one guy is a player and one guy is an owner.......they could be married to each other and it wouldn't matter.....the lines are drawn by the league and nflpa, and while Kraft has done a great job of making himself look spineless, there are certainly limitations to what an owner can go out and do without creating massive collateral damage with regards to his standing and all his other pursuits within that organization.

 

[Tony2046]

One is a request by someone who is supposedly considered a "son" by the other to physically stand by his side at the appeal. The other is an organization representing Brady asking Kraft to call into the appeal. I find it hard to believe that someone such as you can't make that distinction. This isn't a shot at you, I'm just puzzled by it.

Furthermore, we don't know the tone or nature of the NFLPA's conversation with Kraft. Was it an outright denial or did Kraft say it would be tough cuz he'd be flying and the NFLPA agreed that a letter would suffice? We really don't know, just as we don't know if Brady himself actually asked Kraft to physically be there. As I said before, it is fine for people to think that is what happened, but it's another thing entirely to misrepresent peoples' own conversations and bash them for making a very real, significant distinction.

Well, I'm not sure I can agree with that distinction. I would treat the request from either a Lawyer or my son as one in the same. I would argue Kraft's non-presence or non-call differently.

I do not think Kraft has chosen the NFL over Brady rather, as Illegal stated, he is trying to find some magical balance between the two and, imo, has made some disastrous decisions at least from a PR perspective.

With that aside, I do find it odd that Roger scheduled the appeal during Kraft's trip. Was that intentional? I believe so. I also believe that Kraft and Brady had conversations prior to the appeal regarding how to handle the appeal.

IOW, I'm sure or find it believable, as you imply, that Kessler, Kraft and Brady discussed this prior to the hearing. "Hey Mr. Kraft, don't let Roger screw up your trip. A letter will be fine."

Of course the PR side of this is much different.

 

[Galeb]

it depends on perspective and possibly how you want to make something look.......but at the end of the day, one guy is a player and one guy is an owner.......they could be married to each other and it wouldn't matter.....the lines are drawn by the league and nflpa, and while Kraft has done a great job of making himself look spineless, there are certainly limitations to what an owner can go out and do without creating massive collateral damage with regards to his standing and all his other pursuits within that organization.

It's the whole "wanting to make it look a certain way" that bugs me. It's fine to think it happened a certain way and argue to that point, but a high regard for truth must be maintained. We only know a small tidbit, that the NFLPA reached out to RK to phone in and RK sent an affidavit instead.

Both parties probably knew that Kraft's presence wouldn't make any difference in the result of the appeal, but could make significant difference in a court case and also deepen the rift between the Pats and the NFL. What we don't know is Brady's feelings about RK being involved in the appeal and whether or not they even discussed it. We also don't know the NFLPAs, Brady's or Kraft's perspectives on the affidavit vs. a phone call.

It's fine to argue on what may have occurred, but let's not paint assumptions as facts and misrepresent others' statements.

 

[Galeb]

Well, I'm not sure I can agree with that distinction. I would treat the request from either a Lawyer or my son as one in the same. I would argue Kraft's non-presence or non-call differently.

I do not think Kraft has chosen the NFL over Brady rather, as Illegal stated, he is trying to find some magical balance between the two and, imo, has made some disastrous decisions at least from a PR perspective.

With that aside, I do find it odd that Roger scheduled the appeal during Kraft's trip. Was that intentional? I believe so. I also believe that Kraft and Brady had conversations prior to the appeal regarding how to handle the appeal.

IOW, I'm sure or find it believable, as you imply, that Kessler, Kraft and Brady discussed this prior to the hearing. "Hey Mr. Kraft, don't let Roger screw up your trip. A letter will be fine."

Of course the PR side of this is much different.

It's odd that you say you can't see the distinction, yet your opinion reflects a different perspective than the one Andy supports. IMO, since your perspective is different than Andy's, a distinction has been made. You even admit that it's plausible that the NFLPA and Brady were fine with the letter.

I didn't imply that the NFLPA said a letter was fine. I brought it up as a possibility to demonstrate the wide range of what could actually have happened.

Here are some things that illuminate the distinction.

Andy said Brady asked RK to physically be there. A phone call, like the NFLPA requested is not the same as physically being there.

Tom Brady is not the NFLPA. Simply because you would treat a request by your son's lawyer the same as if it were by your son, doesn't mean a request by his lawyer is the same as a request by your son. We lack way too many of the facts to paint this as Kraft refusing a request by Brady himself.

The distinction is clear for all to see. Some may not agree with the distinction, but it requires a lot of assumptions to deny it.

 

[Ring 6]

Hold on a second. I remembered the conversations differently than you did. I considered the possibility that I remembered them incorrectly, so I didn't chime in until I did the research. There were multiple sources with Schefter's tweet, and none said Brady asked Kraft to physically be there. I even read the page in the link you posted, and what people were discussing was Schefter's tweet that the NFLPA asked Kraft to call in.

You can argue that you think that Brady asked Kraft to be there, and that's fine. But claiming it is proven fact, calling out people who disagree and mischaracterizing their own conversations is poor form, and looks really bad. If you really want to be right, you must be able to admit when you are wrong.

I have said over and over, think what you want, I have no interest in an argument.
I have less interest in parsing semantics.
If people representing Brady asked on his behalf that is the same thing as Brady asking. It was for Brady to defend his reputation and defeat a suspension.
I am not going to go back and reread things that I am certain of. It is just not sensible to think that anyone would ask Kraft to appear by phone rather than in person when every other witness was there in person. I don't need to show you a document to have that be blatantly obvious.
In any event, whether he asked him to testify in person, by phone, on closed circuit TV or by telepathy, Robert Kraft said NO. I have no clue why this distinction matters to you. Is it less of a failure to support Brady if he denied by phone instead of in person? Why are we even having this discussion.
Everyone agrees Kraft was asked to testify on Brady's behalf and he declined. There is nothing more to say.

 

[IllegalContact]

Everyone agrees Kraft was asked to testify on Brady's behalf and he declined. There is nothing more to say.

which is meaningless without context

 

[Galeb]

I have said over and over, think what you want, I have no interest in an argument.
I have less interest in parsing semantics.
If people representing Brady asked on his behalf that is the same thing as Brady asking. It was for Brady to defend his reputation and defeat a suspension.
I am not going to go back and reread things that I am certain of. It is just not sensible to think that anyone would ask Kraft to appear by phone rather than in person when every other witness was there in person. I don't need to show you a document to have that be blatantly obvious.
In any event, whether he asked him to testify in person, by phone, on closed circuit TV or by telepathy, Robert Kraft said NO. I have no clue why this distinction matters to you. Is it less of a failure to support Brady if he denied by phone instead of in person? Why are we even having this discussion.
Everyone agrees Kraft was asked to testify on Brady's behalf and he declined. There is nothing more to say.

It is not sensible to think they'd ask the guy who was out of the country to attend via phone?

The request by the lawyer is not the same as a request by Brady. You might treat it the same, but it doesn't make it the same. Given how little information we actually have on the topic, it is more than mere semantics.

When the range of what happened could be anything from an outright betrayal to amicable consensus, such distinctions matter. Kraft and Brady could have discussed it and Brady may have agreed that he didn't need to call in. The NFLPA, after speaking with Kraft, may have said that that an affidavit was fine. Conversely Brady could have strongly requested Kraft be there and the NFLPA was able to guilt an affidavit out of him. The simple fact is, we don't know. Only to those that have already made up their minds, do such distinctions not matter.

 

[Ring 6]

It is not sensible to think they'd ask the guy who was out of the country to attend via phone?

The request by the lawyer is not the same as a request by Brady. You might treat it the same, but it doesn't make it the same. Given how little information we actually have on the topic, it is more than mere semantics.

When the range of what happened could be anything from an outright betrayal to amicable consensus, such distinctions matter. Kraft and Brady could have discussed it and Brady may have agreed that he didn't need to call in. The NFLPA, after speaking with Kraft, may have said that that an affidavit was fine. Conversely Brady could have strongly requested Kraft be there and the NFLPA was able to guilt an affidavit out of him. The simple fact is, we don't know. Only to those that have already made up their minds, do such distinctions not matter.

It is sensible that they asked him to testify by phone AFTER he said he was out of the country and would not return. Let's not forget if he placed as much importance in being a character witness for tom Brady as I bekieve he should he would have come home 6 hours earlier and been there. In this case he not only didn't change his plans he refused to testify by phone.

What we know is that Brady's team wanted him to testify and he did not.

Your straw an arguments that try to make it seem like they asked but didn't really care are ridiculous.

The fact is Brady and his attorneys requested support from Kraft in the form of testimony and Kraft declined.
You can place whatever meaning in that you want to. But making up things that you want to pretend happened is just showing your bias.

 

[Galeb]

Your straw an arguments that try to make it seem like they asked but didn't really care are ridiculous.

Words can't portray the extreme irony of this statement.

The foundation of my argument is that there is a very wide range of what could have happened and that we have far too little information with which to draw firm conclusions.

I never implied that the NFLPA didn't care. To put such words in my mouth betrays a weak argument. If the NFLPA "didn't care", they wouldn't have requested RK to phone in. How that conversation went and how satisfied they were with an affidavit in unknown to either of us.

As I have already pointed out, this could be anything from an outright betrayal to an amicable consensus. I suspect it lies at neither extreme, but don't have nearly enough information to be confident in that conclusion.

 

[Ring 6]

Words can't portray the extreme irony of this statement.

The foundation of my argument is that there is a very wide range of what could have happened and that we have far too little information with which to draw firm conclusions.

There is no argument.
Kraft was asked to testify and declined.
You can make up, infer, believe or state whatever you want about what it means, but the fact is that this is what he did.
My original post IIRC said something to the effect of, in response to filing this amicus at the 11th hour, rather than all of the other times he could have, that he is the same guy who declined to testify.
I have not told or implied what anyone should think about that, just that it is a fact that seems relevant.

I never implied that the NFLPA didn't care. To put such words in my mouth betrays a weak argument. If the NFLPA "didn't care", they wouldn't have requested RK to phone in. How that conversation went and how satisfied they were with an affidavit in unknown to either of us.

Well yeah you kinda did:

Kraft and Brady could have discussed it and Brady may have agreed that he didn't need to call in. The NFLPA, after speaking with Kraft, may have said that that an affidavit was fine.

You implied at least that Brady didn't care, and the NFLPA asked for him to testify but 'was fine' with him not. How is that different than they 'didn't care' if he testified.
None of those things have any basis in fact at all, and were simply just made up, hence the strawman.

As I have already pointed out, this could be anything from an outright betrayal to an amicable consensus. I suspect it lies at neither extreme, but don't have nearly enough information to be confident in that conclusion.

I don't care what you conclude. You have moved the goal posts from it didn't happen to trying to make up reasons about what it means.
As I originally stated, it happened, so people assessing the meaning of the amicus should take that into consideration. It appears you have taken it into consideration by inventing a way that Robert Kraft has done nothing wrong. That is fine, but I have no interest in a discussion coming from that universe.
Have a nice day.

 

[Galeb]

There is no argument.
Kraft was asked to testify and declined.
You can make up, infer, believe or state whatever you want about what it means, but the fact is that this is what he did.
My original post IIRC said something to the effect of, in response to filing this amicus at the 11th hour, rather than all of the other times he could have, that he is the same guy who declined to testify.
I have not told or implied what anyone should think about that, just that it is a fact that seems relevant.


Well yeah you kinda did:


You implied at least that Brady didn't care, and the NFLPA asked for him to testify but 'was fine' with him not. How is that different than they 'didn't care' if he testified.
None of those things have any basis in fact at all, and were simply just made up, hence the strawman.




I don't care what you conclude. You have moved the goal posts from it didn't happen to trying to make up reasons about what it means.
As I originally stated, it happened, so people assessing the meaning of the amicus should take that into consideration. It appears you have taken it into consideration by inventing a way that Robert Kraft has done nothing wrong. That is fine, but I have no interest in a discussion coming from that universe.
Have a nice day.

Bologna. Where did I claim that Brady didn't care? Show me. Not only did I not move the goal posts, I restated the foundation of the argument early on in responses to Tony as well.

Your original claim was that Brady asked RK to be at the appeal, RK declined so the NFL asked him to call in and he declined and sent an affidavit. My response is that we have no evidence that RK had asked to actually be there, in person, and that we also have no evidence that Brady himself asked him anything. I also stated that there is a huge range of what could have happened, from outright betrayal to amicable consensus. I don't know if you're confusing my posts with the others you were arguing with or if you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument, but either way, your interpretation of the actual words I wrote is way off.

You can have your precious last word, I simply request is that you don't misrepresent the words that I actually wrote in it. Have a good, long weekend.

 

[IllegalContact]

Bologna. Where did I claim that Brady didn't care? Show me. Not only did I not move the goal posts, I restated the foundation of the argument early on in responses to Tony as well.

Your original claim was that Brady asked RK to be at the appeal, RK declined so the NFL asked him to call in and he declined and sent an affidavit. My response is that we have no evidence that RK had asked to actually be there, in person, and that we also have no evidence that Brady himself asked him anything. I also stated that there is a huge range of what could have happened, from outright betrayal to amicable consensus. I don't know if you're confusing my posts with the others you were arguing with or if you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument, but either way, your interpretation of the actual words I wrote is way off.

You can have your precious last word, I simply request is that you don't misrepresent the words that I actually wrote in it. Have a good, long weekend.

dude, you're missing the point

your assertions are meaningless
his assertions are meaningful.......but only because he is much more angry