Great Article - In Defense of Robert Kraft

[Deus Irae]

The Wells report is pure garbage for whatever proposition it is offered to support. That is not really the legal question I was asking. In law school and afterwards, you want factual definition to the legal problem. I wasn't suggesting the report was valuable to the NFL. It may be to the Patriots if they were to go forward.

Not sure what your area of practice is in law, but the Davis win was predicated on Rule 4.3 of Article IV, specific to stadium relocations and the requirements therefor. The claim was antitrust. The Ninth Circuit essentially affirmed what the Supreme Court recently decided once and for all in American Needle (NFL not a single entity). It assessed the reasonableness of the territorial restrain in the bylaws, and affirmed the finding that it was unreasonable under the facts and thereby violated the antitrust laws.

The Constitution and Bylaws have changed since 1978 (not exactly the same issue, as the NFL has learned some lessons since then). In the winning case, the Raiders were unanimously shut down in an owners vote by a territorial restriction created shortly before (1 against the world). The fact the report is a hack job is not a claim in itself. It undercuts evidence supporting some legal claim. A federal action would not be premised on a lack of evidence to support an NFL violation. I assume it would be a return to the antitrust act, and be a claim the disciplinary system constitutes an illegal restraint on trade in its arbitrary action. Having reviewed arbitration decisions, no way do I see that standard helping here. The antitrust act argument would appear to be a steeper climb given the unanimous action by the NFL rather than the decision of the NFL officers.

I just wanted to see if you had thought through theories. Out of curiosity, I looked at the law and constitution and bylaws to see what might be there. It looked to me like the possibilities were not awesome. However, many cases settle on a pure embarrassment/discomfort factor, so I would absolutely want to see the NFL and owners squirm on this, regardless of likely outcomes. Much of this case is about public regard, not money or picks, so quiet resolutions do nothing in that regard.

There are multiple avenues that could have been taken, and some strategies would have had better chances to win than othes, which was my point. You also often can't figure out how a judge is going to rule, or think the outcome will clearly be different, as was the case with the blatant league collusion from 2010 being allowed to stand by the courts.

I just don't know where they would have gone, largely because of Kraft himself. In the end, he wouldn't even go for an appeal, so it's hard for me to get behind the notion that he'd ever have gone after the anti-trust status. Yes, they could have looked to anti-trust. Hell, they could have looked to public policy. Instead, they took their ball and went home after getting a beating.

That's in stark contrast to what I expect to see from the NFLPA & Brady, if that 4 game suspension isn't overturned.

Edit: Goodell has reportedly refused to step down from hearing the appeal. That's another angle for the NFLPA now.

 

[MassPats38]

There are multiple avenues that could have been taken, and some strategies would have had better chances to win than othes, which was my point. You also often can't figure out how a judge is going to rule, or think the outcome will clearly be different, as was the case with the blatant league collusion from 2010 being allowed to stand by the courts.

I just don't know where they would have gone, largely because of Kraft himself. In the end, he wouldn't even go for an appeal, so it's hard for me to get behind the notion that he'd ever have gone after the anti-trust status. Yes, they could have looked to anti-trust. Hell, they could have looked to public policy. Instead, they took their ball and went home after getting a beating.

That's in stark contrast to what I expect to see from the NFLPA & Brady, if that 4 game suspension isn't overturned.

Edit: Goodell has reportedly refused to step down from hearing the appeal. That's another angle for the NFLPA now.

It definitely seemed to me there were possibilities for non-frivolous litigation. Absent evidence of which I am unaware to the contrary, it appears the prospect of difficult legal claims caused him to run. I am the consummate optimist, so I always hope there is a silver lining to that surrender. I am frank to say only the Commissioner reversing the finding and throwing out the punishment on some silent agreement makes sense (not that I want that either - at this point I want the war). For a host of reasons, that would make little sense for Goody so I cannot see it. This "road not taken" should definitely have been followed in this case, as I cannot see a chip in the big game large enough to justify backing off here. He's hoping the team will not take a 3rd kick to the sack from Roger? Nice rationale. And a Super Bowl hosting without the Pats because of a gutless decision is worthless to anyone other than Kraft and the local businesses.

I agree that Brady and the NFLPA should not be running from this. There are some great possibilities to publicly beat Goody down, and I expect they will take full advantage of it. It should be fun to watch given everything I have read and seen to date.