Report: 'Influential' owners do not want Tom Brady's suspension reduced/ Brady MAY accept reduction

[HYATT™]

That is all fine and good, but if there is no salary cap, how does any team violate it? The cap was fictitious that year. It was an uncapped year. Projections are just that, projections.

Yes, the Cowboys and Skins were most egregious in their spending, but they didn't violate any rule. They violated a theoretical.

But there WAS a salary cap, by unwritten ILLEGAL monopoly collusion agreement.
The NFL has a Congressional exemption to do that sort of stuff.
The owners agreed to it in their March meeting and then almost half of them went right out and broke that agreement.
LEGALLY there could be no cap because the CBA had been abandoned.
Under the contract language of the old CBA, the final year would be UNCAPPED.

The owners were trying to present a united front, demonstrating their poverty, but several owners couldn't help themselves because they knew nobody would believe they were Little Orphan Annie to begin with. (Jerry, Bobby, & Daniel)
The other owners got pissed and unless they wanted to get kicked out of the fraternity, they had to eat their punishments.

Big whoop. They tried to buy a Lombardi and failed, (except the Packers - who MAY have had an arrangement with the league because they cooked their PUBLICLY available books so well).
The following year they had their spending limited - but notice it was LIMITED.
They didn't lose any money, not even in fines of any significance - they simply couldn't SPEND as much of their TV and marketing loot the next year.

The 2010 cap was indeed VERY real - albeit a VERBAL contractual cap, not a written one.
The owners long known for their forthrightness, (or stinginess), honored it and the known CHEATERS didn't.

 

[SackExchange]

But there WAS a salary cap, by unwritten ILLEGAL monopoly collusion agreement.
The NFL has a Congressional exemption to do that sort of stuff.
The owners agreed to it in their March meeting and then almost half of them went right out and broke that agreement.
LEGALLY there could be no cap because the CBA had been abandoned.
Under the contract language of the old CBA, the final year would be UNCAPPED.

The owners were trying to present a united front, demonstrating their poverty, but several owners couldn't help themselves because they knew nobody would believe they were Little Orphan Annie to begin with. (Jerry, Bobby, & Daniel)
The other owners got pissed and unless they wanted to get kicked out of the fraternity, they had to eat their punishments.

Big whoop. They tried to buy a Lombardi and failed, (except the Packers - who MAY have had an arrangement with the league because they cooked their PUBLICLY available books so well).
The following year they had their spending limited - but notice it was LIMITED.
They didn't lose any money, not even in fines of any significance - they simply couldn't SPEND as much of their TV and marketing loot the next year.

The 2010 cap was indeed VERY real - albeit a VERBAL contractual cap, not a written one.
The owners long known for their forthrightness, (or stinginess), honored it and the known CHEATERS didn't.

By publicly sanctioning two teams for violating something that did not officially exist, but rather existed only in the context of an owners' agreement (i.e., collusion), the league basically admitted to the backroom deal. It's the equivalent of a local police force deciding that the posted 50 MPH limit should really be 35 in some sections, and starting to ticket people for going 47 in those areas. There is no legal standing for it.

 

[flgreen]

profile photo
Dan Leberfeld 19m
"The NFL, I believe, thinks it's going to lose in court." - Sal Pal on San Diego 1090 AM on Brady decision.
Blogger / Podcaster

 

[NickSINYC]

profile photo
Dan Leberfeld 19m
"The NFL, I believe, thinks it's going to lose in court." - Sal Pal on San Diego 1090 AM on Brady decision.
Blogger / Podcaster

I have seen that reported from multiple sources. What bothers me is so what take a shot if it goes to court. The NFL can afford the expense and IMO caving to avoid a loss in court is worse than losing.

 

[mykcuz]

Also known as collusion

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[mykcuz]

How could the nfl lose, the commissioner was given discretion to oversee punishment and created a department that specializes in it.
The Patriots didn't fight the loss of their first round pick, therefore accepting responsibility even if the owner made a snake oil speech.
On top of having physical evidence, Bradys texts talking about the pre meditated cheating, Brady also violated the cba by not cooperating, which he agreed to in order to receive his millions.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[HYATT™]

By publicly sanctioning two teams for violating something that did not officially exist, but rather existed only in the context of an owners' agreement (i.e., collusion), the league basically admitted to the backroom deal. It's the equivalent of a local police force deciding that the posted 50 MPH limit should really be 35 in some sections, and starting to ticket people for going 47 in those areas. There is no legal standing for it.

The point is, because of their Congressional exemption and the Mayer v Belicheat decisions, the NFL is like the Vatican - a country unto itself, with it's own rules and enforcement - or not - options.
If they say there was a cap in 2010, then there was a cap and DAL & WAS violated it, and were punished.

So too, can they win in court against any suit Bradybich brings.
The courts will simply follow precedent, (and the dictates of their NFL owners), and toss Brady out on his ear.

 

[SackExchange]

The point is, because of their Congressional exemption and the Mayer v Belicheat decisions, the NFL is like the Vatican - a country unto itself, with it's own rules and enforcement - or not - options.
If they say there was a cap in 2010, then there was a cap and DAL & WAS violated it, and were punished.

So too, can they win in court against any suit Bradybich brings.
The courts will simply follow precedent, (and the dictates of their NFL owners), and toss Brady out on his ear.

Valid point.

 

[SackExchange]

Now, I take what Stephen A. Smith says with a HUGE grain of salt. But IF this is true, there absolutely cannot be any reduction in the suspension, much less eliminating it. If Brady actually destroyed his phone, it's evidence of a cover-up.

That said, the carrier may have the records, unless Kraft's checkbook already visited them, too.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/stephen-a-smith-hears-doesnt-know-tom-brady-destroyed-his-phone/