WildCard Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 If this suspension really is upheld, and Brady does miss the first 4 games, then it could be absolutely huge for Buffalo. The Patriots play -Pittsburgh -@Buffalo -Jacksonville -@Dallas That's a pretty tough schedule even with Brady. Without him, 1-3 is a very feasible outcome for NE. With him? Could be 3-1 or at worst 2-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Much appreciated, 11. Looks like this guy from Forbes agrees with you as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/07/28/odds-are-stacked-against-tom-brady-successfully-suing-the-nfl/ There are opinions on both sides, of course. I'm sure the folks at the Boston papers have a different opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Much appreciated, 11. Looks like this guy from Forbes agrees with you as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/07/28/odds-are-stacked-against-tom-brady-successfully-suing-the-nfl/ I've yet to see a decent take on how the substantive labor laws might affect this proceeding, and, specifically, the request for a preliminary injunction. I've seen allusions to how there's traction for the NFLPA/Brady there, but no explanation. Not for nothing: The blogger for Forbes needs to read your post, Eleven, to get a handle on the proper procedural standard. Also, from what I heard about the Judge in Minnesota (holy NFL animus) I'm not so sure he wouldn't go a bit rogue, exercise jurisdiction, and grant an injunction (or maybe just a TRO) -- despite the first filed action in the SDNY. Edited July 29, 2015 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Very materially. In the Second Circuit (for the rest of the board, that's where this is playing out, if this was filed in Manhattan): a party must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a serious question going to the merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor. Lots of circuits do not have the "serious question" option. Now let's analyze: What's the irreparable harm? Not his lost salary, because money is never, ever considered "irreparable harm." Not likely his reputation, since at the end of the day, he could still be vindicated by a verdict in his favor. It's got to be the opportunity to play. With a normal occupation, that won't fly, since the real opportunity is to earn money (again, never, ever considered "irreparable harm"),but maybe with a waning football career, he's got something. Maybe. The second prong of the test: Overturning an arbitrator's decision is hard, so he probably doesn't have a likelihood of success on the merits. But one basis for overturning an award is arbitrator bias, and he may try to argue that Goodell is biased. That's at least a serious question going to the merits. Now we're down to a balance of hardships, and whether it tips decidedly in his favor, and I have no idea. The league has a serious interest in wanting to effectively and efficiently discipline cheaters. Brady has an interest in playing football. Don't know what a judge is going to do there. :worthy: Thanks for the info. Absolutely LOVE that Marsha's legacy is now cemented as a cheating bitch. Too bad that they stretched the rules (aka cheated) in the Ravens game. They'd've lost that game and had 1 less superbowl "victory" but Marsha wouldn't have been flat out a cheating wench. Knowing the legacy is that of a cheater has to rub sand in that oh so tender oriface. Maybe Giselle has an ointment for that. Couldn't happen to a nicer d-bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 :worthy: Thanks for the info. Absolutely LOVE that Marsha's legacy is now cemented as a cheating bitch. Too bad that they stretched the rules (aka cheated) in the Ravens game. They'd've lost that game and had 1 less superbowl "victory" but Marsha wouldn't have been flat out a cheating wench. Knowing the legacy is that of a cheater has to rub sand in that oh so tender oriface. Maybe Giselle has an ointment for that. Couldn't happen to a nicer d-bag. Ravens game? or Colts game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 There are opinions on both sides, of course. I'm sure the folks at the Boston papers have a different opinion. Well this Boston Herald writer isn't buying the Brady claims. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/07/destroying_device_looks_bad_for_tom_brady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Ravens game? or Colts game? Ravens game in which they violated the spirit of the equal substitution rule by declaring a receiver "ineligible." The league closed that loophole in the offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 This deflated footballs thing needs to go away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Right. That's the procedural standard. My sense was that the governing substantive law may place a gloss on the proceedings that would otherwise not be in play -- something about how Goodell's actions as arbitrator may be subject to somewhat closer scrutiny based on concepts of precedent, notice, due process. Its both but not for the prelim injunction. Brady will attempt to show that the process was a sham- meaning totally unfair- He will also argue "law of the shop" which is a legal premise used when reviewing arbitration decision made under CBA's. This means that even with the plain language of the CBA, that Goodell acted outside what he had always done in the past, violating custom and practice of the unspoken rules everyone was operating under. You see a little bit of this in some of Brady's people's statements, that hey Goodell was acting totally unfair and was making it up as he goes so it's not under CBA or law of shop. Thus Brady had no way to defend himself. I still think it's a large uphill battle for him to have a court overturn. This isn't like the Peterson case at all. And as I told the guy who spoke on GR this morning---- he actually got all that stuff from me---- it's not about the evidence, it's not about him destroying his phone--- as far as the lawsuit is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Its both but not for the prelim injunction. Thanks for the insight on the labor law stuff. What you've outlined there -- as to the merits of his claims about Goodell acting outside the CBA and outside "law of the shop" and therefore denying Brady the right to defend himself or be on notice of what the possible punishment would be -- should absolutely be in play on a motion for preliminary injunction. I say that because the merits of your claim are a key part of whether a judge is likely to grant you a provisional remedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Thanks for the insight on the labor law stuff. What you've outlined there -- as to the merits of his claims about Goodell acting outside the CBA and outside "law of the shop" and therefore denying Brady the right to defend himself or be on notice of what the possible punishment would be -- should absolutely be in play on a motion for preliminary injunction. I say that because the merits of your claim are a key part of whether a judge is likely to grant you a provisional remedy. Right but as Eleven laid out I don't think there's irreparable harm, and i don't think he has a likelihood of success on the merits, it's too high of a burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 On page 14 of his final decision filed in federal court yesterday, Goodell addresses the issue of Law of Shop. Essentially, his argument is that all cases are unique and he goes on to draw contrasts to other contested rulings. I find it compelling. Not sure how a judge will view it, but I can see why some believe Goodell did a good job in articulating his final decision for the court's consumption. If anyone hasn't read it, take the time to do so. I can now see why there were 40 people in that hearing room at the appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Right but as Eleven laid out I don't think there's irreparable harm, and i don't think he has a likelihood of success on the merits, it's too high of a burden. I'm unaware of what the case law will say about whether Brady's inability to play in 4 games will constitute irreparable harm. I can see a persuasive argument being made about how the nature of his employment is such that missing those 4 games is something that a money judgment cannot compensate -- the loss of a unique opportunity that can never be gained back if it's missed. I think irreparable harm may actually be his strongest contention. And I think the labor law issues you've identified are where the NFLPA thinks it can make hay on its likelihood of success prong -- there's a peculiar set of rules in that area whereby an employee can prevail based on what may seem like technical grounds (e.g., an absence of some form or corollary of due process). Like I said, if this were a non-CBA-related (garden variety) attempt to upset an arbitrator's decision, I think Brady would have almost no shot (absent a sympathetic court). But in the labor law arena, it seems he has more of a fighting chance. The pundit talk (FWIW) prior to yesterday's decision was trending in the direction of the NFL being in a potentially bad spot when it came to defending the suspension. On page 14 of his final decision filed in federal court yesterday, Goodell addresses the issue of Law of Shop. Essentially, his argument is that all cases are unique and he goes on to draw contrasts to other contested rulings. I find it compelling. Not sure how a judge will view it, but I can see why some believe Goodell did a good job in articulating his final decision for the court's consumption. Interesting. The decision took time to come out because Goodell & Co. wanted to make the decision as sustainable as possible, and, apparently, wanted to tee up the papers necessary to commence an action in Manhattan seeking to have the decision ratified. One thing is for sure, I am saying a prayer for whoever was responsible for effectuating the filing of the commencement papers in Manhattan. It may've been the attorney himself (not sure who that is - an in-house attorney? he's at Akin Gump apparently), although I sorta doubt that. Edited July 29, 2015 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 One thing is for sure, I am saying a prayer for whoever was responsible for effectuating the filing of the commencement papers in Manhattan. It may've been the attorney himself (not sure who that is - an in-house attorney? he's at Akin Gump apparently), although I sorta doubt that. peeshardy.png Okay, now that's funny. Poor guy :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Okay, now that's funny. Poor guy :lol: It's his secretary or paralegal for whom I feel badly. . . . or maybe his associate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 It's his secretary or paralegal for whom I feel badly. . . . or maybe his associate. Meh, it's just a cover sheet missing a signature. I wouldn't beat up a paralegal over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Meh, it's just a cover sheet missing a signature. I wouldn't beat up a paralegal over that. What is the prevailing legal standard for beating a paralegal in the 8th Judicial District? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Meh, it's just a cover sheet missing a signature. I wouldn't beat up a paralegal over that. Right. YOU wouldn't. I'm just imagining the Akin Gump partner getting the email about some sort of filing error. What is the prevailing legal standard for beating a paralegal in the 8th Judicial District? :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Meh, it's just a cover sheet missing a signature. I wouldn't beat up a paralegal over that. Maybe you wouldn't, but I have doubts about that Angry Eleven fellow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Maybe you wouldn't, but I have doubts about that Angry Eleven fellow... My bet is that Angry Eleven reserves his ire for deserving members of this online community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) My bet is that Angry Eleven reserves his ire for deserving members of this online community. I think he directs his anger at the bone-headed Sabres' management, especially when it concerns a former Sabre that he felt needed to go for a long time before he actually went. Edited July 29, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 I think he directs his anger at the bone-headed Sabres' management, especially when it concerns a former Sabre that he felt needed to go for a long time before he actually went. Fair point. But wasn't Eleven a staunch supported of Ruff, maybe even until the bitter end? Also, there are some lawyerly beauties in that Brady statement on social media. My favorites: "I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances." Setting aside the idea that anyone would go from Droid to iPhone (ha), I appreciate the unilateral nature of this contention. I only destroyed the phone AFTER my lawyers told the NFL that they'd never have access to it. Hmm. Never have access? Like, never ever? But what if, say, the internal discipline process wound up in, say, the federal courts? And there then needed to be discovery? What then, Tom? He was so clearly under a duty to preserve that phone. I do not believe for a second that his attorneys would've green-lit the phone's destruction. If they did? They did so with an admonition that the fall-out from doing so could be very bad for Brady. I'm also wondering whether Brady's opened the door to discovery of what his attorneys told him regarding the old phone. "Most importantly, I have never written, texted, emailed to anybody at anytime, anything related to football air pressure before this issue was raised at the AFC Championship game in January." No texts regarding football air pressure. That seems like a weirdly narrow subject matter. Moreover, I love how this so clearly leaves open the possibility (i.e., fact) that he texted with people regarding this matter after the issue was raised. What was said in the most panicked and furtive of those texts that were destroyed and never produced by a third party? Alas, we may never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Brady's lying. End of discussion. ----- Aud, I believe you are correct in that 11 supported Ruff, as I recall anyway. His anger was directed at Regier, mostly, and Quinn back in the day. Edited July 29, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Brady's lying. End of discussion. ----- Aud, I believe you are correct in that 11 supported Ruff, as I recall anyway. His anger was directed at Regier, mostly, and Quinn back in the day. Thanks. Brady has lied, and is lying. But there's so much more going on. Much of it has to do with how incredibly inept and bumbling the NFL is when it comes to handling its internal disciplinary process. The whole thing is a clusterfunk. The one bit of upside I am still hoping for: Not seeing Brady in game 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Wow, I've really made it. Yes, I still think it was silly to fire Ruff and yes, I place the blame on Regier and Quinn. And no, I wouldn't chew out a paralegal for a little screw up that has no real consequences. Maybe the NFL's attorney would, who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.