Fencer
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 14,293
- Reaction score
- 3,986
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:
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:
I might choose to tell the "framed and defamed" story via a timeline of major lies:
I say all this as a current expert -- I like to think -- on strategic messaging, and as a past expert on negotiation.
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.
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.
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.)
- 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.