Dale and Holley - Patriots THURSDAY if you will...

[FreeTedWilliams]

The most interesting thing that I heard, was that the tapes that Walsh had, show the signals, then they are spliced with the play from the two different coaches tape angles. THIS ABSOLUTELY PROVES WHAT BB HAS BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, that they never viewed the tapes at halftime and that they gave the Pats no advantage on game day. Walsh's tapes prove that the Pats took these tapes, then AFTER THE GAME, edited them to include the two coaches tape views, and then stored them away for future scouting.

So after all of this, it turns out, all the Pats were doing was making very good scouting tapes of the opponets signals, something that any team could do from thier tapes. The Pats just made a better product!

So everyone who said that they used these tapes at halftime, YOU WERE WRONG!!!

I can only hope that Godell comes out with the announcment, that these tapes prove that the Pats did not attempt to, nor did they recieve a competitive advantage during the game that was being taped.

So Spector, Tomase, et al, FU!!!

 

[Rob0729]

You bring up an important point:

“Mr. Walsh has never claimed to have a tape of the walk-through,” Levy said in a telephone interview. “Mr. Walsh has never been the source of any of the media speculation about such a tape. Mr. Walsh was not the source for the Feb. 2 Boston Herald article.”

Levy has been Walsh's attorney for at least 2 months now. He could not have put that statement about the Ram's tape out there before last night?

Why did Levy let the Rams Tape misinformation linger?

Yeah, Chris Mortensen brought this up on Mike and Mike in the Morning. This makes me believe that Walsh being cast as a disgruntled employee looking to get back at his former employer might be true.

The only reason I can think Levy wouldn't denounce this information is because he felt if the league thought he has a copy of the tape of the walkthrough that he would have more advantage when negotiating the indemnity agreeement. If Goodell knew he didn't have anything relevant, he might not have given in to a lot of Walsh's demands. At the point of Levy's involvement, Walsh was at the point of no turning back to get the indemnity agreement.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Why did Levy let the Rams Tape misinformation linger?

Because, from a legal standpoint, they didn't have to make a statement. Obviously, from an ethical standpoint, they should have.

 

[JoePats]

Because, from a legal standpoint, they didn't have to make a statement. Obviously, from an ethical standpoint, they should have.

Maybe so but he's going to put his client in an embarassing position next week when he gets called out by the commissioner of the NFL.

 

[Rob0729]

Because, from a legal standpoint, they didn't have to make a statement. Obviously, from an ethical standpoint, they should have.

As I stated in my last post, there was a negotiation advantage in not letting that information out. But if Walsh does bring anything to Goodell in terms of testimony, it does raise more doubts in his credibility and motive that he did let the rumor hang out there so long.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe so but he's going to put his client in an embarassing position next week when he gets called out by the commissioner of the NFL.

All that matters is that Walsh's travel expenses and Levy's billable hours for representing him got covered. In the final analysis, that was the most pressing function of the indemnity agreement. As an aside he got indemnity against any claims regarding his clients involvement in this mess provided he doesn't knowingly tell any more lies or insinuate to any other party anything he isn't willing to share with Goodell. Levy wasn't hired to insure his client wasn't embarassed. He was hired to insure his client could tell what he knows (or thought he knew) and produce what tangible evidence he has and walk away without suffering a personal financial loss in the process.

 

[BradyManny]

You bring up an important point:

“Mr. Walsh has never claimed to have a tape of the walk-through,” Levy said in a telephone interview. “Mr. Walsh has never been the source of any of the media speculation about such a tape. Mr. Walsh was not the source for the Feb. 2 Boston Herald article.”

Levy has been Walsh's attorney for at least 2 months now. He could not have put that statement about the Ram's tape out there before last night?

Why did Levy let the Rams Tape misinformation linger?

The simplest explanation for a lot of things is that Matt Walsh is a compulsive liar (documented) and was looking at a way to turn some lies and exaggerations into press for himself, and eventually money (book deal or something). The impetus for this whole thing may have been the fact that he was let go from that club he was working on, which I believe one of the Globe articles on him happened not too long before he decided to come out into the public with this stuff.

 

[dhamz]

The only reason I can think Levy wouldn't denounce this information is because he felt if the league thought he has a copy of the tape of the walkthrough that he would have more advantage when negotiating the indemnity agreeement.

Another possible reason - his client was not being honest with him about whether he had it or not.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Plus, they were stolen tapes. If word got out that tapes might not include the walk-thru, doubt if the lawyer could have wrangled out all these protections for stolen property.