Why I think Brady is a lock for Game 1

[Fencer]

1. If Brady ever was really willing to take a 1-game suspension, I think things have gotten too far from him to settle for that now. The core reason is not so much that he's very likely to win the case in the end; missing a regular-season game isn't the end of the world, in terms of football and money alike.

Rather, the core reason is that the league seems desperately committed to continuing to paint him as a villain, and I don't think he'll give them the ammunition of any settlement beyond MAYBE a small fine.

2. Whether or not Berman decides for Brady in the end, he's made it very clear he thinks Brady has a strong case. Thus, should a decision or simply a delay go against Brady, the likelihood-of-winning test for an injunction will presumably be met.

3. The irreparable-harm test for an injunction is overwhelmingly met. And Berman doesn't happen to be so sports-ignorant as to not realize that.

 

[DarrylS]

I was listening to McCann yesterday on EEI and he said that the chance of injunction if Brady loses is not a slam dunk as other judges may not look favorably on this request as they do not want to discredit the first judge's decision.

He also said that despite issues with the product and issues with the method that Berman could uphold the arbitrary decision of Goodell because of the very powerful article 46.

http://media.weei.com/a/108455926/m...-15.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Interestingly McCann is offering a course on the Legal Aspects of Deflategate at UNH in the fall..

 

[supafly]

I'm not quite as sure as you seem to be that he's definitely a "lock" for game one, but I feel very confident that if he does miss time, it will only be for the season opener (due to settlement).

If that's the case, I would take solace in the fact that this is finally over, with no possibility of appeal, or reason to concern myself any longer. I would also be quite happy that his suspension had been drastically reduced, with a clear cut victory for team Brady.

Either way, I'm starting to feel much better about this tragedy--which is concerning in and of itself.

 

[DarrylS]

If that's the case, I would take solace in the fact that this is finally over,

As long as Tomase, ESPN, Felger, Borges, Dungy and the rest of the mediots are still reporting this will never be over, it will take on new lives because of some other witness who heard a guy say or some other such nonsensical basis of evidence..

 

[supafly]

I was listening to McCann yesterday on EEI and he said that the chance of injunction if Brady loses is not a slam dunk as other judges may not look favorably on this request as they do not want to discredit the first judge's decision.

He also said that despite issues with the product and issues with the method that Berman could uphold the arbitrary decision of Goodell because of the very powerful article 46.

http://media.weei.com/a/108455926/m...-15.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Interestingly McCann is offering a course on the Legal Aspects of Deflategate at UNH in the fall..

I trust McCann's opinion throughout this matter, and I believe that he's been very fair and impartial. I think he gives clear reasoning as to why a settlement (one game, no admitting wrongdoing aside from non cooperation...yawn) should still be a strong consideration for Brady and the union. This would be the safest choice and would end this tragedy once and for all.

Every time we start to listen to the mediots, who shape the public's opinion and continue to change with the wind, we are let down. Even the most experienced legal minds in the media and on this forum still believe that it's nothing more than a toss up. Those are the people whom I trust and believe, at least as it pertains to this matter.

 

[supafly]

As long as Tomase, ESPN, Felger, Borges, Dungy and the rest of the mediots are still reporting this will never be over, it will take on new lives because of some other witness who heard a guy say or some other such nonsensical basis of evidence..

I mean vs. the aspect of having it dragged out on appeal, etc. A settlement automatically removes any possibility of an appeal or a new suspension imposed under different wording, etc. It would finally all be over.

Having the suspension drastically reduced would be a clear cut victory for Brady, and although I respect anyone's opinion who believes otherwise, I feel that it's difficult to argue against that.

We've been hearing for months about how strong Goodell's case was and how he wouldn't budge from his 4 game suspension. To have that all thrown out in court and have a one game settlement reached wouldn't be that bad of an outcome (in my opinion). It would be a 75 percent reduction in suspension. That's huge.

Even if Brady wins, you're still going to hear about how it doesn't prove anything more than the legal technicalities of the labor contract etc. That's not going to concern me, nor is it likely to go away. The longer this drags out, the more media attention it will receive. I honestly think it'd be much lower on the list of news priorities should they end it once and for all.

 

[BigPeteG]

I just don't see Brady settling when he didn't do anything wrong.. Even a fine for not cooperating seems like a stretch.. I Think Berman is waisting his time on this settlement thing...probably not going to happen.

 

[Brewskies]

Is this still the NFL vs Brady or the NFL vs the NFLPA.
If the judge is forced to make the decision and it's not 4 games then I believe they will appeal. This is about stuffing against the NFLPA. I know it's Brady's case to win or lose, take 1 game, no admission of guilt and no appeal. Move on damage already done in public opinion.

 

[Baboon]

Due Process is required by the constitution, and by any arbitration (regardless of the stupidity of the NFLPA.) Berman clearly indicates that "Due Process" was not followed.

The Award will be over-turned. The question remains what will Berman require the NFL do to resolve the case.

In any event, Brady will play the entire season.

 

[archstanton543]

Why I think Brady is a lock for Game 1:

He's going to win his lawsuit and even if the NFL appeals, he still gets to play.

 

[Froob]

That would be in the best interest for the integrity of the game.

 

[archstanton543]

1. If Brady ever was really willing to take a 1-game suspension, I think things have gotten too far from him to settle for that now..

Why would he? By all accounts he's winning. Why would he quit while he's ahead?

 

[Fencer]

Why would he? By all accounts he's winning. Why would he quit while he's ahead?

We've been over that at length already. No need to rehash it now.

 

[Fencer]

I was listening to McCann yesterday on EEI and he said that the chance of injunction if Brady loses is not a slam dunk as other judges may not look favorably on this request as they do not want to discredit the first judge's decision.

He also said that despite issues with the product and issues with the method that Berman could uphold the arbitrary decision of Goodell because of the very powerful article 46.

http://media.weei.com/a/108455926/m...-15.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Interestingly McCann is offering a course on the Legal Aspects of Deflategate at UNH in the fall..

My point is that I think Berman, in the relatively unlikely event that he rules against Brady, would issue the injunction himself anyway.

My other point is to argue against other scenarios that have been suggested. (E.g., that Berman doesn't rule before the suspension starts, or that Berman vacates the suspension and the league quickly re-suspends Brady.)

 

[Fencer]

Due Process is required by the constitution,

Not really. It's only required in connection with government actions, not private ones.

If your boss walks into your office and fires you for no reason, either that's legal, or else it's illegal as a general matter of labor law, or else it's illegal because of your specific employment agreement/CBA. What it's not, however, is unconstitutional.

 

[Tony2046]

I just don't see Brady settling when he didn't do anything wrong.. Even a fine for not cooperating seems like a stretch.. I Think Berman is waisting his time on this settlement thing...probably not going to happen.

If it was just a fine it would be considered a huge victory for Brady. A fine means no appeal and Deflategate is over.

If they do not settle and Brady has his suspension vacated in court by the Judge, the NFL could appeal which would drag this whole BS out for another year or two or three .....

 

[Baboon]

Not really. It's only required in connection with government actions, not private ones.

If your boss walks into your office and fires you for no reason, either that's legal, or else it's illegal as a general matter of labor law, or else it's illegal because of your specific employment agreement/CBA. What it's not, however, is unconstitutional.

I appreciate your response as it was swift, polite and seemingly informative.

Among the great questions the judge will serve: Was this arbitration process fundamentally / constitutionally sound?

You have few employment rights as an individual if your employer fires you with or without cause. I will not list these, but included, are civil rights.

If you are actioned upon with or without cause in the USA, you are protected by "Due Process," regardless of your disposition. Meaning, you are entitled to due process if due process need be served.

 

[Ring 6]

I mean vs. the aspect of having it dragged out on appeal, etc. A settlement automatically removes any possibility of an appeal or a new suspension imposed under different wording, etc. It would finally all be over.

Having the suspension drastically reduced would be a clear cut victory for Brady, and although I respect anyone's opinion who believes otherwise, I feel that it's difficult to argue against that.

We've been hearing for months about how strong Goodell's case was and how he wouldn't budge from his 4 game suspension. To have that all thrown out in court and have a one game settlement reached wouldn't be that bad of an outcome (in my opinion). It would be a 75 percent reduction in suspension. That's huge.

Even if Brady wins, you're still going to hear about how it doesn't prove anything more than the legal technicalities of the labor contract etc. That's not going to concern me, nor is it likely to go away. The longer this drags out, the more media attention it will receive. I honestly think it'd be much lower on the list of news priorities should they end it once and for all.

I don't understand why someone bring suspended for a game for doing absolutely nothing would be considered a win.

 

[letekro]

I appreciate your response as it was swift, polite and seemingly informative.

Among the great questions the judge will serve: Was this arbitration process fundamentally / constitutionally sound?

You have few employment rights as an individual if your employer fires you with or without cause. I will not list these, but included, are civil rights.

If you are actioned upon with or without cause in the USA, you are protected by "Due Process," regardless of your disposition. Meaning, you are entitled to due process if due process need be served.

This is not correct. Many private institutions have their own due process requirements that are based on the constitutional requirements that apply to government action, but many private institutions do not and there would be no due process violations if they were to discipline or fire you for any or no reason. Of course, other laws (those prohibiting discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace for example) may make the employer's conduct actionable.

 

[Baboon]

This is not correct. Many private institutions have their own due process requirements that are based on the constitutional requirements that apply to government action, but many private institutions do not and there would be no due process violations if they were to discipline or fire you for any or no reason. Of course, other laws (those prohibiting discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace for example) may make the employer's conduct actionable.

You are incorrect, and I hope you are not counsel for any large employer.

Edit: The constitution applies to employers whether government or private.