He did not admit guilt, he realized that his power to do anything was lost when they gave goodell dictatorial powers.
His actions are perceived to be an admission of guilt. There is no logical explanation for an innocent man refusing to appeal.
In 2007, they had no past history and technically, they did something a league memo had said not to do.
They did something that they interpreted as legal, because the league memo specified 'for use during that game'. You aren't doing something you were told not to if you have to remove a key part of the letter to say you violated it. Thats like saying a kid who can't drive after 9 should get a ticket for driving at noon because the rule says so if you ignore the qualifier.
He reasoned [and rightly, according to at least one of the recent articles condemning goodell and Wells] that isolating himself as one owner who did not have a union, or a legal process behind him, would be counter productive.
This is bunk. He reasoned that he needed to not challenge Goodell because it would set a bad precedent if an owner challenged the commissioner, so that players could then have more cause to challenge. He probably knew Goodell would have to rule in his favor, so the other owners told him he can't embarrass Goodell like that.
To say an innocent man exercising his right to appeal is counterproductive is just stupid. There is nothing the New England Patriots lose by appealing.
I have challenged multiple people to describe what he could do against a crazed commissioner with unlimited powers, and the best i've got is, he can cause a stink and cannot force a fair arbitration process.
No, you got many answers that you choose to ignore. Your red herring is that he has no chance, that is not a fact, just something you make up to defend Kraft.
He could very easily have challenged the Wells report and made a clear convincing argument that the findings were unjust. To say that doing that is silly because you hired a commissioner who has no integrity and will ignore the truth and lie to the world is moronic. But, saying you were correct about that, why wouldn't Kraft want it on the record, so he can use it to get rid of the man you claim has a hell-bent obsession on ruining Krafts franchise?
You act as if Goodell's life work is to screw Kraft, so Krafts smartest move is to sweep it under the carpet and wait until the next time he has to bend over.
So, losing, in the midst of a winning union grievance and possible lawsuit by Brady, is victory, with the other 31 owners gaining power to his detriment in keeping goodell, or choosing his successor.
This makes no sense. How is losing a 1st a 4th and $1,000,000 a victory? How is beinjg found guilty of something you didn't do, and having the reputation of your franchise falsely smeared and your legacy damaged forever a victory? How does letting Goodell screw you then COMPLEMENTING HIM in your pc get him out? How does not exposing what you think is a vendetta against you that would cause him to lie cheat and steal to hurt you help you get rid of him.
You are chugging the Kraft coolaid by the gallon, and ignoring everything that resembles fact.
I say it again, if goodell decided this was the punishment, besides losing loudly, what could Kraft have done about it?
Goodell decided this was the punishment based upon the Wells report, and the Wells report alone.
Kraft could have fought the Wells report. It IS that simple.
By your logic Brady should just take the 4 games because Goodell already decided, and won't listen to any evidence he brings in, even though he publicly encouraged it.
You do realize that Goodell will be held up to public scrutiny on how he judges the evidence Brady presents right? You do realize he will be held to public scrutiny about losing at trial, right?
Somehow you think "Wells missed some things and didn't do a very good job. We will look to a different investigator next time" is a greater crime than punishing the GOAT QB and one of your 32 teams for something you know they did not do.
That is simply bizarre.