off topic Buffalo Bills 2015

[That Aud Smell]

Likely under the NLRA or the FAA.

 

He will seek a preliminary injunction allowing him to play while the final determination of the lawsuit remains pending.  I'll post the standard for that once I know what court he files in.

 

I'm out of my depth with that labor law stuff -- is the standard apt to differ much from the typical standard for the provisional remedy he'll be seeking? (I.e., irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and a balancing of equities in his favor?)

 

Just for giggles:

 

As for irreparable harm, I'll just presume he can carry that. Can't get those 4 games back.

 

No idea on likelihood of success. I've seen digested bits out there to the effect that the NFL will be in a bad spot when it comes to defending this discipline. But, like I said, that labor law stuff makes me feel like Caveman Lawyer.

 

 

As for balancing of equities ... I'm sure there's poop to fling at both sides. At best, that should be a wash for Tawmmy Terrific. More likely, he gets the short end of the stick for being obstructive and uncooperative.

Edited July 28, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

I'm out of my depth with that labor law stuff -- is the standard apt to differ much from the typical standard for the provisional remedy he'll be seeking? (I.e., irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and a balancing of equities in his favor?)

 

Just for giggles:

 

As for irreparable harm, I'll just presume he can carry that. Can't get those 4 games back.

 

No idea on likelihood of success. I've seen digested bits out there to the effect that the NFL will be in a bad spot when it comes to defending this discipline. But, like I said, that labor law stuff makes me feel like Caveman Lawyer.

 

 

As for balancing of equities ... I'm sure there's poop to fling at both sides. At best, that should be a wash for Tawmmy Terrific. More likely, he gets the short end of that stick.

 

Yes, but that standard differs from circuit to circuit, so I want to wait until I know where he's filing.

[WildCard]

Brady claims he destroys his phone for personal reasons, but the league found that his previous phone had not been destroyed, and this one was destroyed the day he was scheduled to meet with Wells. Brady didn't want those messages to be seen, and if he takes it to court they are going to be seen, so I don't know why he wouldn't just deal with missing the first four games. They only win 1 or 2 of those every year anyway. 

It's not really the amount of games that's the big issue for Brady from what I've heard, but rather his legacy being marred. He'll comp to the destruction of evidence and all that, but he won't admit he was a cheater. Probably why he destroyed the phone: it mandates a 2 game uncooperative suspension, but he avoids being directly implicated as cheating, which leaves him free to contest that he never did

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer 2m2 minutes ago

Through the process, Brady did express a desire to those involved put this to bed with a deal, but wasn't willing to accept guilt.

Then there's this

 

“In Spygate in 2007, when [Coach] Bill Belichick and the Patriots were fined – apparently there’s some language in that agreement – in that fine that ultimately handed down to him, that if something like this happened again, you’re talking about Bill Belichick being banned. Which, in some folks’ eyes may have facilitated [owner] Robert Kraft showing a willingness to accept the penance and the penalty Roger Goodell handed down to him.”- Stephen A. Smith

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179494-brady-4-game-suspension-upheld-appeal-rejected/page-3

Edited July 28, 2015 by WildCard

[Hoss]

I do not think Brady will take this to court. He knows he cheated and lied. I don't believe he's dumb enough to do so in federal court. And I don't believe he's THAT much of a scumbag to ask others to lie in court for him.

[TrueBlueGED]

Brady claims he destroys his phone for personal reasons, but the league found that his previous phone had not been destroyed, and this one was destroyed the day he was scheduled to meet with Wells. Brady didn't want those messages to be seen, and if he takes it to court they are going to be seen, so I don't know why he wouldn't just deal with missing the first four games. They only win 1 or 2 of those every year anyway.

Legacy.

 

I think the most hilarious thing to me is how bad Brady is at all of this. He looked like a liar during Super Bowl week, then he goes to the extreme of destroying his phone when he had zero reason to do so? Hilarious. It's not like the NFL has subpoena power; he could have just refused access. But instead he takes the one action in the world that would make him look more guilty than he already does. To top it all off, he doesn't tell the NFL it was destroyed until months after the fact, then the best story he can come up with is he always destroys his phones (even though he didn't destroy the last one)?

 

I don't care if I'm being petty, this whole thing is glorious in its hilariosity (It's a word if I say it is). Brady is a cheater and a liar and I couldn't be happier.

[tom webster]

I do not think Brady will take this to court. He knows he cheated and lied. I don't believe he's dumb enough to do so in federal court. And I don't believe he's THAT much of a scumbag to ask others to lie in court for him.

 

 

I agree with this but I think he might start the process hoping to drag it on for awhile.

[TrueBlueGED]

It's not really the amount of games that's the big issue for Brady from what I've heard, but rather his legacy being marred. He'll comp to the destruction of evidence and all that, but he won't admit he was a cheater. Probably why he destroyed the phone: it mandates a 2 game uncooperative suspension, but he avoids being directly implicated as cheating, which leaves him free to contest that he never did

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer 2m2 minutes ago

Through the process, Brady did express a desire to those involved put this to bed with a deal, but wasn't willing to accept guilt.

 

Then there's this

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179494-brady-4-game-suspension-upheld-appeal-rejected/page-3

I still think Belichick should have been suspended for a full season like Payton was for bountygate.

I do not think Brady will take this to court. He knows he cheated and lied. I don't believe he's dumb enough to do so in federal court. And I don't believe he's THAT much of a scumbag to ask others to lie in court for him.

I don't see why Brady would have to lie in court to challenge this. I'm not exactly a labor law expert, but I'd imagine his legal team will be 100% focused on Goodell overstepping his bounds and on the "unfair" appeal process the league has. Under such an argument, Brady's guilt/innocence would be basically irrelevant. I think. Maybe.

[Hoss]

I don't see why Brady would have to lie in court to challenge this. I'm not exactly a labor law expert, but I'd imagine his legal team will be 100% focused on Goodell overstepping his bounds and on the "unfair" appeal process the league has. Under such an argument, Brady's guilt/innocence would be basically irrelevant. I think. Maybe.

Brady's goal through this has been to clear his name and uphold his innocence. I don't think he's changing gears now.

 

 

The NFLPA hopes to file in Minnesota court if Brady gives them the go-ahead. The NFL has filed a complaint in a NY court asking them to support the suspension meaning that a case would take place there. Fun. Let's play some football (except you, Tom).

Edited July 28, 2015 by Hoss

[That Aud Smell]

I do not think Brady will take this to court. He knows he cheated and lied. I don't believe he's dumb enough to do so in federal court. And I don't believe he's THAT much of a scumbag to ask others to lie in court for him.

 

He mos def was going to court.

 

Anyway, the NFL preemptively filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

 

Ginger Hammer, indeed.

Yes, but that standard differs from circuit to circuit

 

Materially?

 

I'm asking. I don't get out much.

[TrueBlueGED]

Andrew Brandt is a really good follow right now.

 

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt  24m24 minutes ago

Two problems for appeal: 1) Courts have great deference to established arbitration systems, 2) Brady/NFLPA agreed to CBA, Cmmr as arbitrator

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt  17m17 minutes ago

Ruling brings out all the keywords for NFL discipline: conduct detrimental, integrity, competitive advantage, public confidence, etc.

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt  12m12 minutes ago

NFL has asked federal court in NY to confirm Brady suspension, per @soshnick. Preemptive strike to take it away from Minn. court.

[That Aud Smell]

thanks, TB. he is good. this one grabbed me, too.

 

 

Andrew Brandt @adbrandt

Now to comment on potential Brady appeal to federal court: lots of mischaracterizations that this is a winnable process. Not an easy road.

[That Aud Smell]

What's really perplexing is that this went down on a Tuesday, not a Friday.  :rolleyes:

[Eleven]

He mos def was going to court.

 

Anyway, the NFL preemptively filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

 

Ginger Hammer, indeed.

 

Materially?

 

I'm asking. I don't get out much.

 

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.

[K-9]

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.

Hey, Bert. Any chance you might be willing to share this with the folks on The Stadium Wall over at TwoBillsDrive? We could use the edification over there.

[TrueBlueGED]

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.

 

1) Thanks for this.

 

2) How do you think the CBA comes into play with the bolded point? Without trying to dissect the exact language used, if Goodell was agreed to as an arbitrator by the NFLPA via the CBA, I'd think that would knock at least one leg out from under the bias argument.

[That Aud Smell]

^ 

 

good stuff. thanks.

 

this is like my CLE for the week. do i read it right that the "serious question" threshold is coupled with the equities/hardship piece? that is, if you have a likelihood of success, then the court need not pass on the hardship issue?

 

strikes me that the serious question option tends to favor a petitioning party -- provides a somewhat lightened standard where the facts are murky but the equities are strongly in your favour.

 

one thing seemed clear: the NFL wanted to keep the matter away from some other district court. which one? did i read that it would've been in minnesota? (if so, i am not clear as to why.)

that's another point i've heard about, but don't understand: there's labor law standards at play here. something that goes beyond the garden variety challenge to an arbitrator's decision. in a garden variety challenge, a petitioner is pretty much up sh!t's creek -- the standards are slanted heavily in favor of the arbitration process. i get the sense that labor law's a bit of a different animal*

 

*#RIPCecilTheLion

[sabills]

^ 

 

good stuff. thanks.

 

this is like my CLE for the week. do i read it right that the "serious question" threshold is coupled with the equities/hardship piece? that is, if you have a likelihood of success, then the court need not pass on the hardship issue?

 

strikes me that the serious question option tends to favor a petitioning party -- provides a somewhat lightened standard where the facts are murky but the equities are strongly in your favour.

 

one thing seemed clear: the NFL wanted to keep the matter away from some other district court. which one? did i read that it would've been in minnesota? (if so, i am not clear as to why.)

 

 

Not sure why Minnesota, but from tweets I've seen that is where the previous CBA designated any of these sort of proceedings played out. That changed with the more recent CBA, probably mostly because all the rulings seemed to go the NFLPA's way and the NFL didn't like that. Now it has to do with where its first filed; in this case that is NY.

[TrueBlueGED]

^ 

 

good stuff. thanks.

 

this is like my CLE for the week. do i read it right that the "serious question" threshold is coupled with the equities/hardship piece? that is, if you have a likelihood of success, then the court need not pass on the hardship issue?

 

strikes me that the serious question option tends to favor a petitioning party -- provides a somewhat lightened standard where the facts are murky but the equities are strongly in your favour.

 

one thing seemed clear: the NFL wanted to keep the matter away from some other district court. which one? did i read that it would've been in minnesota? (if so, i am not clear as to why.)

that's another point i've heard about, but don't understand: there's labor law standards at play here. something that goes beyond the garden variety challenge to an arbitrator's decision. in a garden variety challenge, a petitioner is pretty much up sh!t's creek -- the standards are slanted heavily in favor of the arbitration process. i get the sense that labor law's a bit of a different animal*

 

*#RIPCecilTheLion

 

I'm not sure if it's a matter of wanting to keep it out of Minnesota, or wanting to get it in NY. I could only guess that if the NFLPA is filing in Minnesota it's because the 8th circuit is labor-friendly...but that's purely a guess. I do know, however, that the 2nd Circuit is the most business-friendly appeals court in the country.

[Eleven]

Hey, Bert. Any chance you might be willing to share this with the folks on The Stadium Wall over at TwoBillsDrive? We could use the edification over there.

 

Done. 

 

1) Thanks for this.

 

2) How do you think the CBA comes into play with the bolded point? Without trying to dissect the exact language used, if Goodell was agreed to as an arbitrator by the NFLPA via the CBA, I'd think that would knock at least one leg out from under the bias argument.

 

I think it will have a lot to do with how much input Goodell had in the original punishment (I don't remember).  Since we all have an inherent bias in favor of our own decisions, there's a fair argument that he was biased as an arbitrator if he was heavily involved in the 4 game ban to begin with.

 

 

^ 

 

good stuff. thanks.

 

this is like my CLE for the week. do i read it right that the "serious question" threshold is coupled with the equities/hardship piece? that is, if you have a likelihood of success, then the court need not pass on the hardship issue?

 

strikes me that the serious question option tends to favor a petitioning party -- provides a somewhat lightened standard where the facts are murky but the equities are strongly in your favour.

 

one thing seemed clear: the NFL wanted to keep the matter away from some other district court. which one? did i read that it would've been in minnesota? (if so, i am not clear as to why.)

that's another point i've heard about, but don't understand: there's labor law standards at play here. something that goes beyond the garden variety challenge to an arbitrator's decision. in a garden variety challenge, a petitioner is pretty much up sh!t's creek -- the standards are slanted heavily in favor of the arbitration process. i get the sense that labor law's a bit of a different animal*

 

*#RIPCecilTheLion

 

That's the general standard for all preliminary injunctions in the second circuit--not just labor.  Yes, the "serious questions plus hardship balance" test is more lenient than that used in other circuits.  It's also more lenient than NY state court.

 

You are correct; the NFLPA likes the District of Minnesota and its history of sports-union-favorable opinions.

[That Aud Smell]

That's the general standard for all preliminary injunctions in the second circuit--not just labor.  Yes, the "serious questions plus hardship balance" test is more lenient than that used in other circuits.  It's also more lenient than NY state court.

 

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.

[Brawndo]

@mikerodak: The Bills have terminated the contract of guard Chris Williams with a designation of failed physical, a source tells @FieldYates.

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

See ya.

 

Was he the guy they brought over from the Rams?

[TrueBlueGED]

@mikerodak: The Bills have terminated the contract of guard Chris Williams with a designation of failed physical, a source tells @FieldYates.

Saves $4m next year. Precursor to the Dareus extension getting done?

 

...or making room for #Brees2016. What's that, stop dreaming? No, I will not!

[K-9]

Done. 

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/

[IKnowPhysics]

Brady suspension upheld. Will not play QB for the Blue Jays for the first four games of the year.

 

Hahahrawrrahaha