How Brady could get his reputation back, quickly

[Fencer]

Tom Brady has a one-time opportunity in public messaging over the next few days, by stating a negotiating position for settlement discussions. He can't really be stopped from doing that, whether in open court or by leak as the case may be. And if he does state it, it will get coverage.

The value of the opportunity is that he has a chance to take a bold stance in a context where he will be perceived to be sincere. Jumping straight to what I think the stance should be, I recommend three non-negotiable elements:

• No admission of guilt, because he's not guilty.
• No suspension, because that would be perceived as an admission of guilt.
• Retaining his right to sue for defamation, because damages have clearly escalated to >$10 million already.

By way of contrast, he could be flexible on the timing and rules for an independent arbiter re-hearing. (I presume he wants a veto over the arbitrator and the time to be shortly after next season -- but if he has to bend on those reasonable requests, so be it.) He could offer a cash payment in lieu of a fine. (Cheaper and easier than continued litigation.) But he should hold firm on the three principles I suggested, and be very clear in stating them.

The novel part of what I'm suggesting is the emphasis on a future defamation suit (which he then would indeed file whenever it procedurally made sense to do so). That is the one way I can see to make such a ringing declaration of innocence that people would have to sit up and reconsider their own views on the subject. It is also the best way to call attention to the extreme nature of the NFL's malfeasance.

For this strategy to work, Brady's side also has to present a clear and simple case to persuade the public he was defamed. I suggest focusing on a few points. The core points for innocence are:

• In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of improper deflation.
• Similarly, there is no evidence whatsoever of Brady's participation in any conspiracy.
• No "where there's this much smoke there must be fire" argument is valid, because the NFL actively framed and defamed Brady.

The last point is why I think emphasizing a defamation case is crucial.

I might choose to tell the "framed and defamed" story via a timeline of major lies:

• The early and repeated lies about ball pressure readings.
  
• The fairly early and long repeated lies about Wells' independence.
• The lies about Brady's non-cooperation. (This is one of the less persuasive parts of the case, but should probably be included anyhow.)
  
• The whopper about Brady's testimony on his Jastremski conversations. (This is a biggie, evidently, since it proved persuasive to multiple media members.)

Finally, because this speaks to all of Brady's innocence, the NFL's dishonesty, and specific defamation, I'd stress that:

• The NFL originally said they couldn't prove Brady's guilt (but thought it was more probable than not yada yada).
• Then, as a legal maneuver, against the rules of arbitration appeal procedure, and based on no new incriminating evidence, Goodell suddenly said that he thought Brady's guilt had been proved after all.

--------------------------------------

I say all this as a current expert -- I like to think -- on strategic messaging, and as a past expert on negotiation.

 

[VectorPrime]

By fighting Roger Goodell to the death

 

[Fencer]

By fighting Roger Goodell to the death

That's basically what I'm suggesting.

 

[sphen22]

Goodell shall hence forth play slot receiver for Peyton Manning running only routes over the middle.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Steel cage Deathmatch.

 

[NashuaPats]

After he wins his defamation case for tens of millions, he should state that he is already wealthy and is donating the money to others harmed by Roger Goodell's lies by giving it to those players suffering from post career concussion problems. That would help his rep and would be another kick in the balls to the dictator.

 

[GrogansArmy]

Brady should have filed a defamation law suit right after his appeal hearing over and finding out that Wells' investigation was not independent.

 

[GrogansArmy]

After he wins his defamation case for tens of millions

Screw 10's of million, I want Brady to go for it all: 100 million from every team for defaming his character for a total of 3.1 billion. That should get Goodell fired.

 

[VectorPrime]

Screw 10's of million, I want Brady to go for it all: 100 million from every team for defaming his character for a total of 3.1 billion. That should get Goodell fired.

I guess you want to see Brady laughed out of the courtroom?

 

[GrogansArmy]

I guess you want to see Brady laughed out of the courtroom?

Lol just wishful thinking of my part of course. If there was any justice in this world Brady would win.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Screw 10's of million, I want Brady to go for it all: 100 million from every team for defaming his character for a total of 3.1 billion. That should get Goodell fired.

Not to be facetious, but there is such a thing as "punitive damages." Strictly speaking, BTW, there is a good chance that the NFL's lies constitute defamation per se, which means that the lie is harmful enough that it isn't necessary to prove economic damages.

 

[Fencer]

Not to be facetious, but there is such a thing as "punitive damages." Strictly speaking, BTW, there is a good chance that the NFL's lies constitute defamation per se, which means that the lie is harmful enough that it isn't necessary to prove economic damages.

How often do public figures in this country win defamation cases with punitive damages?

 

[Fencer]

One virtue of my plan -- from negotiation and PR standpoints alike -- is that it would be pretty hard for the NFL to remain firm in BOTH the stances:

• We're sure Brady is guilty.
• We want protection from any future defamation suits.

Yes, anything can happen in litigation and so on -- but if you really believe that your criticism of a public figure was CORRECT, and if you were fairly temperate in your language (as the league has indeed been), then you shouldn't be too worried about a defamation action.

 

[supafly]

Yes, anything can happen in litigation and so on -- but if you really believe that your criticism of a public figure was CORRECT, and if you were fairly temperate in your language (as the league has indeed been), then you shouldn't be too worried about a defamation action.

It seems crystal clear that they believe their "facts" and criticism of Brady are correct, and I doubt they are really that concerned about a defamation suit (in my opinion).

Hell, Jonathan Vilma actually won his court case and they still dismissed the defamation suit. We'll know soon enough, but I've never felt as though it was a realistic approach for TFB. I think his odds of having the court even hear his case would be insanely low.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

You guys got it all wrong with this 'courtroom to get his reputation back' )).
Just about everyone loves a winner. Just about everyone forgives a winner for just about anything.
Brady gets it all back with: The Patriots led by an incredible last minute drive by Brady win the Super Bowl. After the game is over and the pomp and circumstance is going on, Brady is on the stage along with Goodell's putrid face being up there too. For all the cameras to see Brady takes a confident, sarcastic peer from top to bottom of Goodell, does a quiet smug laugh that emits a clear 'I'm five time Mr Cool SB winner -- and you look like you're a ridiculed, shown up douchebag that's in the middle of a severe attack of irritable bowel syndrome', then Brady simply says to Goodell "You mad bro?".

At that point Brady will have them lined up to endorse/pitch whatever snake oil is out there. Conversely for Mr Ahole, he will seethe underneath while many ask him "Roger, you seemed real real uncomfortable up there. You still mad bro?'.

Now that's justice! ((One can dream, right?? ))

 

[Fencer]

It seems crystal clear that they believe their "facts" and criticism of Brady are correct, and I doubt they are really that concerned about a defamation suit (in my opinion).

Hell, Jonathan Vilma actually won his court case and they still dismissed the defamation suit. We'll know soon enough, but I've never felt as though it was a realistic approach for TFB. I think his odds of having the court even hear his case would be insanely low.

McCann et al. think Brady has a shot at it.

Any favorable view of his chances require believing in identifiable, provable, damaging falsehoods (not just errors). So I'm disputing the bolded part of your quote. For example:

• Goodell made a big fuss out of mischaracterizing what Brady testified about his conversations with Jastremski.
• The incorrect PSI figures are a pretty clear-cut case, if a court finds that the eventual correction was too late to undo the defamation.

Unfortunately, the other candidates for defamation are a bit more of a stretch, given that Brady is a public figure, but those two stand out.

 

[adam941]

• The whopper about Brady's testimony on his Jastremski conversations. (This is a biggie, evidently, since it proved persuasive to multiple media members.)

I had not noticed this. If this did persuade anyone, then these media members truly should be ashamed.

I never did like any suggested compromise offers that included waiving defamation litigation - I always thought that was one of the biggest weapons Brady has. He can benefit significantly just by filing and going through the motions, a win is NOT necessary. Maybe that's why it was often thrown into offers because it wasn't seen possible to win.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

How often do public figures in this country win defamation cases with punitive damages?

What about Jastremski and McNally? I'm very curious about what their intentions are at this point.

They're not public figures. Even though their damages don't amount to nearly as much as Brady's, they seem to have a pretty solid claim against Goodell/NFL.

I would guess that the NFL could deal with them by offering a substantial pre-suit settlement offer with a confidentiality clause.

 

[supafly]

McCann et al. think Brady has a shot at it.

Any favorable view of his chances require believing in identifiable, provable, damaging falsehoods (not just errors). So I'm disputing the bolded part of your quote. For example:

• Goodell made a big fuss out of mischaracterizing what Brady testified about his conversations with Jastremski.
• The incorrect PSI figures are a pretty clear-cut case, if a court finds that the eventual correction was too late to undo the defamation.

Unfortunately, the other candidates for defamation are a bit more of a stretch, given that Brady is a public figure, but those two stand out.

One thing to ponder if you actually think Brady will file--why hasn't he yet? When Vilma got suspended, his lawsuit was filed almost immediately. He filed in May, and it was dismissed 8 months later in January.

If Brady loses this month in court, which will basically amount to the 3rd time (investigation ruling, appeal loss, court upholding suspension), I doubt it would improve his odds of having a court even think twice about a defamation suit.

Maybe they are waiting to see how the federal court case plays out first?

 

[HawaiianPatsfan]

How great would this be if Brady sues, lets say for 100 million. I think this is a reasonable amount taking into consideration his net worth, and a recent report were he sees fit to lose about 8 million a year in future endorsement. When he wins, he then renegotiate's his contract to 0$ a year, frees up a bunch of cap space, and wins another 3 super bowls. This would be the top of the list of things he could do to slap all other 31 owners and the NFL in the face.