After reading the Agt. itself last night, some thoughts:
1. It's clear that both sides contemplate Walsh having tapes--there's no doubt about that now;
2. Section 1(a) also contemplates the idea that Walsh may have given materials to others and needs to get that back--Tomasse perhaps, or some third party to back his story up to Tomasse so that the Herald could run the story without fear of being sued? Any journalists out there able to answer whether that would be "normal" to do so without disclosing it in the article? (In my best Mr. Scott impersonation here, "I'm a lawyer, Cap'n, not a journalist!");
3. Under 1(b), and as has been reported elsewhere, it looks like Walsh can talk to third parties about what he's turning over, but there are restrictions on his ability to let others see his lawyer's copy of the materials he gets to keep (at least for a little while--there's another provision saying he needs to turn those materials over to the League at some point);
4. Under section 2 Walsh will be talking to the NFL not just about videotaping, but also about "any other violations" of which he has personal knowledge (audiotaping perhaps?);
5. The possibility of Congressional hearings is contemplated in section 3(a);
6. What to me may be the most important nugget here is also in 3(a), namely the Agt. goes into detail on when Walsh was presumed to be working for the Pats and actions he took will be presumed to be their actions--including taping activities relating to Pats games (the "Covered Videotaping Action" defn.) It then goes on to say that things outside those listed activities (which, to my reading, may arguably not include taping a Rams practice) need to be proved by Walsh to have been Pats actions by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that this is even in here leads me to even more strongly suspect that on May 13 among the items turned over will be a SB 36 walkthrough tape.
7. I also found that section on rehabilitating reputations (4(b)) interesting, but am not quite sure what's contemplated by it. It is pretty powerful, however, due to the statement that it trumps the rest of the Agt.
For those of you taking comfort from the Pats strong denials--go back and re-read that denial. They say that the "NE Patriots" didn't tape the walkthrough--that will be their argument, it was Walsh as a lone gunmen. And the rest of world outside New England will have a good old laugh at that, I suspect, as will the Commissioner. As noted before, in that case, my suspicion is that BB may have coached his last NFL game and the loss of a first round draft pick this year will be made to look like a slap on the wrist.
I originally thought that this may be to the Pats benefit when I saw the timing of this--i.e., if they're doing all this this week, the week of the draft, then the League thinks Walsh has nothing. But when the fact that they plan to do this in the NFL season "dead zone" of the period between the draft and spring training, I now think just the opposite. The delay here IMHO has been the NFL trying to position what they know to be a smelly problem into a media period when it will do them the least harm.
Flame away, but I'm just calling it like I see it--for those who think I'm an anti-Pats, pro-Bills homer, go check out my posts last week in which I admit that it's very likely my team moves to Toronto. I root for a team, but I try to maintain my objectivity, so take the above in that spirit. Either way, it's going to be an interesting May.....
PS On the criminal charges for audiotaping, I don't think that will work here, as the Pats seem to be waiving their right to bring that suit--even in a criminal case you need a complainant (the Pats/Pioli) and that complainant here seems to be saying it won't bring the case.
