bakes781
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 452
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, grasshopper.Slagathor said:Wow!
ESPN's report and Borges's are TOTALLY different. Night and Day
I hate to say it but I think Borges's explanation will be the correct one. I hope I'm wrong.
Just so long as New England gets to keep the house and kids.FloridaPatsFan said:This is sounding more and more like a typical divorce proceeding between a man and his wife. In most cases, the person filing for divorce (Deion Branch), will eventually be granted a divorce but it will come at a great cost. (I'm sure some of you out there can relate). And the person who was not requesting a divorce (Patriots) get the house, boat, kids, etc.
Or maybe I have this all wrong.............
Box_O_Rocks said:Just so long as New England gets to keep the house and kids.
patchick said:This would make sense if he felt that this claim were dependent on the claim being heard by the special master--e.g. if the grievance would only make sense if the team were judged guilty of negotiating in bad faith. My uninformed guess is this ruling is a mild positive for the Patriots.
PatsFaninAZ said:Yes, this is the most likely explanation. I can think of three others.
1) This jurisdictional issue is a freaking morass and I can't figure it out, so I don't want to decide it unless I have to, and I don't have to if the second grievance goes against Branch, because then I can just decide against him on the merits and avoid taking any position that would have implications beyond this case.
2) The special master in the second grievance is going to be taking discovery, and who knows what will come to light, so I'll just keep my powder dry until I hear about that second grievance.
3) I'm really freaking busy, because I'm a fancy professor and the new semester has just started, and I have better crap to do and I have a theoretical justification for punting -- that there's a second grievance -- so I'm going to jump on it, particularly since these annoying lawyers kept me on the phone for 4 hours last night arguing some esoteric jurisdictional question, which makes me think that when we get to the actual merits these blow hards are going to eat up 2 whole days of my time when I could be hitting on the new young co-eds at the University.
PonyExpress said:This is clearly spin by the tendentious Borges. Branch just got his @$$ kicked in open court, and once the negative news reached the press, the NFLPA lawyers began spinning to lessen the public embarrassment to them and Branch. What the NFLPA is really saying is, "yeah, so, everything really depends on the Special Master's decision", which is what the Pats petitioned for in the first place.
desi-patsfan said:Forgive me, i found this post to be in very bad taste.
Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.Digger44 said:Fogive you???? No, you are right on. Why does this trash have to tolerated or posted here? This dude needs to take a hike.
patchick said:If Team Branch loses at the SM level and tries to appeal through the courts, I wonder who'd be footing the legal bill?
Box_O_Rocks said:Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.
Perhaps, I'm not going to be too judgmental of other's feelings until they become irrationally over sensitive, where I do have a concern is maintaining some level of civil discourse here. This was a joke that prompted two posters to take offense, since it was a joke and not directly a part of the football discussion, make an apology and allow all parties to move on and enjoy themselves in the forum. No need for banishment or violent congressional-style diatribes - we can save those for NEM's play calling.pats1 said:I don't think there was all that much wrong with that post.
Not that I support the KKK or anything, but I don't get why people find offense in others simply using the name.
Dragda was fine. There wasn't a personal attack or anything of the like.
Box_O_Rocks said:Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.