Antonio Brown

[Biffins]

There goes $9m. Worse than losing first round pick etc.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet BB was unhappy on being forced to release AB by Kraft.

Not true.

And Brady has clearly been upset at the way the situation has been handled. So while you might think this was a clear-cut egregious behaviour, atleast in BB and Brady's view it wasn't so apparent. Kraft forced the issue.

You are making this up.
I’m sure Brady liked playing with brown. That doesn’t mean he thinks the situation was handled poorly. He, unlike you, is not a child who thinks he should get want he wants because he wants it.

 

[luuked]

That he wasn't dismissed when it first came to light is actually a plus in that scenario as it could easily be seen as the team trying to make the best of a bad situation and could be construed as good faith on the team's part.

I remember the team leaked Kraft saying that if he knew about the civil suit he would not have giving his OK to sign AB. Back then beat guys were speculating that this was leaked specifically to position yourself for exactly the "good faith" argument in case something comes up.

 

[maust]

I remember the team leaked Kraft saying that if he knew about the civil suit he would not have giving his OK to sign AB. Back then beat guys were speculating that this was leaked specifically to position yourself for exactly the "good faith" argument in case something comes up.

I realize a CBA muddies the waters a bit and maybe @PatsDeb could give us some clarification but in most any other contractual arrangement it's hard for a party that bargained in bad faith to gain traction in any subsequent dispute. I'm no lawyer, I've never played one on TV and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but in my career dealings with industrial suppliers and contractors contract disputes were not altogether uncommon and verifiable evidence of bad faith usually cost the offending party in a substantive way

 

[MainePatsFan26]

I realize a CBA muddies the waters a bit a bit and maybe @PatsDeb could give us some clarification but in most any other contractual arrangement it's hard for a party that bargained in bad faith to gain traction in any subsequent dispute. I'm no lawyer, I've never played one on TV and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but in my career dealings with industrial suppliers and contractors contract disputes were not altogether uncommon and verifiable evidence of bad faith usually cost the offending party in a substantive way

I would also assume that Brown will need to remain an angel until the spring for his claims to have any merit. If he continues to act like a clown and borderline criminal, then a "bad faith" argument by the Patriots suddenly looks great.

I also wouldn't be surprised to find out Kraft, through back channels, looks to provoke more poor behavior from Brown to further sully his reputation. Millions are on the line, so why not go for the jugular?

 

[venecol]

There will be a lot of sound and fury around texts or comparisons to what others may or may not have done. From my admittedly limited viewpoint it would not surprise me if as far as his grievance against new England goes his purposeful failure to disclose a known adverse condition during negotiations isn't interpreted as bad faith bargaining that negates the bulk of their contractual obligation to him. That he wasn't dismissed when it first came to light is actually a plus in that scenario as it could easily be seen as the team trying to make the best of a bad situation and could be construed as good faith on the team's part.

Everything I've read says it is likely the Pats have to pay up. Apparently the CBA takes precedence, and guaranteed money, is well, guaranteed.

Also, they not only played him after they found out, but continued to have him in practices getting ready for the next game, even after the 2nd story came out a week later.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And yet BB was unhappy on being forced to release AB by Kraft.

And you were bugging Kraft’s office to find this out?

All we “know” (in quotes because all we have is “sources say” from one beat writer) is that Belichick (a) reportedly understood and agreed with Kraft’s position after their talk and (b) reportedly, if left to his own devices would have preferred to keep Brown.

You’re pulling “unhappy” out of your backside.

 

[luuked]

I would also assume that Brown will need to remain an angel until the spring for his claims to have any merit. If he continues to act like a clown and borderline criminal, then a "bad faith" argument by the Patriots suddenly looks great.

I also wouldn't be surprised to find out Kraft, through back channels, looks to provoke more poor behavior from Brown to further sully his reputation. Millions are on the line, so why not go for the jugular?

Nothing AB did or will do since the release has any consequence on the grievance. He could book a balloon, get a harpoon and start murdering people from the sky and it would have zero effect on the outcome of that.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Nothing AB did or will do since the release has any consequence on the grievance. He could book a balloon, get a harpoon and start murdering people from the sky and it would have zero effect on the outcome of that.

99.9% you're correct. However, I still would guess how Brown comports himself will have a slight impact on how the case is received. With how he has been acting, I don't see any judge siding with a maniac like him unless he is 100% in the right.

The guy comes across like a POS, and as much as we like to pretend the legal system is all about the law, it is also about optics.

 

[luuked]

99.9% you're correct. However, I still would guess how Brown comports himself will have a slight impact on how the case is received. With how he has been acting, I don't see any judge siding with a maniac like him unless he is 100% in the right.

The guy comes across like a POS, and as much as we like to pretend the legal system is all about the law, it is also about optics.

Keep in mind how complicated and long the grievance process with the remaining Hernandez bonus was. And there we were talking about an actual murderer.

It is about the contract language nothing else.

 

[PittPatriot]

It’s crazy how there was negative news about Antonio every day when he was with the patriots…
Nobody talks about him now.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It’s crazy how there was negative news about Antonio every day when he was with the patriots…
Nobody talks about him now.

It’s not crazy at all. He’s not playing for anyone. Doesn’t matter who he was on. Once cut and so not seen every day he’s not news.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Also, he *was* in the news a few days ago when he did something newsworthy — going bonkers at that deposition.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure could have used him these past two games...

 

[Biffins]

Not true.


You are making this up.
I’m sure Brady liked playing with brown. That doesn’t mean he thinks the situation was handled poorly. He, unlike you, is not a child who thinks he should get want he wants because he wants it.

Brady has come out multiple times and said that he wished Brown was still on the team. This is about as strong a statement as he could make to indicate he wished things had been handled differently.

 

[Biffins]

It’s crazy how there was negative news about Antonio every day when he was with the patriots…
Nobody talks about him now.

Yes it's quite pathetic.

Any chance we can settle the grievance and in the settlement, bring him back?

 

[mosslost]

Yes it's quite pathetic.

Any chance we can settle the grievance and in the settlement, bring him back?

sure
Sign him

 

[shmessy]

Which part of the contract did he violate by texting the girl "she's broke" "you're lying" or some variant of it, on a story that originally surfaced years ago and was dug out again by a SI hack journalist. There's no civil or criminal suit here.

Are you talking American legal system or European/Australian legal system, mate?

.

 

[upstater1]

Which part of the contract did he violate by texting the girl "she's broke" "you're lying" or some variant of it, on a story that originally surfaced years ago and was dug out again by a SI hack journalist. There's no civil or criminal suit here.

He had no choice but to cut the guy.

I interpreted what he did as intimidation, an allusion to an implied threat toward her kids.

"Hey, KC, please go to Maryland and look into this woman. And by the way, this is a picture of her kids."

She interpreted it as a threat toward her kids. I interpreted it as intimidation. All of America outside of a portion of Patriot fans interpreted as intimidation. You can't intimidate someone by putting up pictures of her kids like that.

I know you don't see it as intimidation.

But you should just recognize that a lot of people do, including a lot of Patriots fans, all of the Boston media, and many people associated with the Patriots.

This isn't a mystery.

You simply can't intimidate someone with an implied threat about their kids.

 

[upstater1]

It’s crazy how there was negative news about Antonio every day when he was with the patriots…
Nobody talks about him now.

I just read about him on ESPN. He went nuts at a deposition this week. The Antonio Chronicles continue.